The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision regarding a class action lawsuit against GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings. The court ruled that GateHouse's attempt to remove the case from state court to federal court was untimely. This ruling affects the plaintiffs, who are seeking to represent a class in their lawsuit against the media company, and highlights the strict deadlines involved in legal proceedings.
The case, known as John Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings (docket number 25-4015), began over six years ago when plaintiffs John Ewalt, Steve Wylie, and Bonnie Navarre filed a class action lawsuit against GateHouse in Ohio state court. The plaintiffs accused the company of practices that they claimed violated consumer protection laws. GateHouse initially removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows for federal jurisdiction in certain class action cases.
For nearly five years, the case was litigated in federal court. However, in May 2024, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remanded the case back to state court. The court concluded that it could no longer exercise jurisdiction over the case after denying class certification. This remand left the plaintiffs with the opportunity to renew their motion for class certification, which they did in January 2025.
GateHouse responded by attempting to remove the case to federal court again on February 18, 2025, claiming it was still eligible for federal jurisdiction under CAFA. The plaintiffs argued that this second removal was untimely, as it exceeded the 30-day deadline for removal established by federal law. The district court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, allowing the case to remain in federal court.
However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and ultimately disagreed with the district court's decision. The court pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, which clarified that the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) cannot be equitably tolled. The court stated, "the removal clock is unforgiving and cannot be equitably tolled." This meant that GateHouse's second removal attempt was invalid, as it occurred more than 2,000 days after the original complaint was filed.
In its opinion, the court emphasized that once the 30-day removal period had expired, the opportunity for GateHouse to remove the case to federal court was effectively closed. The judges involved in the ruling were Julia Smith Gibbons, Amul R. Thapar, and Chad A. Readler. They instructed the district court to remand the case back to state court.
This ruling has significant implications for the plaintiffs, who are now back in state court pursuing their class action lawsuit. It underscores the importance of adhering to strict timelines in legal proceedings, particularly in class action cases where jurisdiction can shift between state and federal courts.
Moving forward, the plaintiffs will continue their efforts to certify their class in state court. The ruling also serves as a reminder for defendants in similar situations to be vigilant about deadlines and the implications of class certification on jurisdiction. The court's decision reinforces existing legal precedent that jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of filing, not based on subsequent developments.
As for GateHouse Media, the company may still have options to contest the remand or address the issues raised in the case, but they will need to act within the confines of the law as established by the appellate court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further actions by GateHouse.