## Facts

- West Virginia’s Attorney General sued several pharmacy retailers in West Virginia state court, alleging they sold generic drugs but failed to pass along generic cost savings to consumers.
- The State asserted claims under a pharmacy-practice statute, W. Va. Code § 30-5-12b(g), and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, including prohibitions on unfair or deceptive practices and “excess charges.”
- The State sued in its sovereign and quasi-sovereign capacity and sought injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement for overcharges, recovery of excess charges for consumers, civil penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
- The complaint was not filed as a class action and did not invoke Rule 23 or any West Virginia class-action procedural rule.
- Defendants removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), arguing the suit was a “disguised” class action because it sought monetary relief benefiting many consumers.
- The district court remanded, treating the case as a parens patriae enforcement action outside CAFA’s class-action removal provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether a state attorney general’s parens patriae enforcement suit seeking restitution for many residents qualifies as a “class action” removable under CAFA when it is not filed under Rule 23 or a similar state class-action rule.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the remand order.
- The court held the action was not a CAFA “class action” because it was not filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or a similar state statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing a case to proceed “as a class action.”
- Because CAFA did not apply, federal jurisdiction was absent and removal was improper.

## Legal Principles

- CAFA defines a “class action” as a civil action filed under Rule 23 or a similar state statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought as a class action.
- Whether a case is a CAFA class action turns on the procedural basis invoked to bring the case, not on functional resemblance to aggregate litigation or the number of persons who may benefit from relief.
- A “similar” state statute or rule for CAFA purposes must supply class-action-type procedures (e.g., mechanisms for certification and representative safeguards), not merely authorize an attorney general to seek restitution or other remedies on behalf of residents.
- A parens patriae suit may seek consumer restitution while still serving state sovereign and quasi-sovereign enforcement interests, and that feature alone does not convert it into a class action.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that West Virginia’s attorney general enforcement action, though seeking restitution that would benefit many consumers, was not removable under CAFA because it was not filed under Rule 23 or a comparable state class-action procedural rule, so the case properly remained in state court.


West Virginia v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011)