e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85842
Opinion Date : 05/22/2026
e-Journal Date : 06/11/2026
Court : U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
Case Name : Ewalt v. GateHouse Media OH Holdings II, Inc.
Practice Area(s) : Litigation
Judge(s) : Readler, Gibbons, and Thapar
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Removal; The 30-day limitation on removing a case to federal court; 28 USC § 1446(b)(1); Whether plaintiffs’ class certification attempt in state court after remand “reset the removal clock”; Metz v Unizan Bank; Whether the 30-day deadline could be equitably tolled: Enbridge Energy, LP v Nessel ex rel MI; The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

Summary

The court held that defendant-GateHouse Media’s second removal of plaintiffs’ putative class action to federal court was untimely under the 30-day deadline, and that equitable tolling of the removal deadline was foreclosed under the Supreme Court’s decision in Enbridge. This case was originally filed in state court, then timely removed under the CAFA to federal court, which eventually denied class certification and remanded to state court on the basis federal jurisdiction disappeared with the certification denial. Eight months later, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion in state court to certify a class, and GateHouse responded by again removing the case to federal court based on the CAFA. Plaintiffs argued that the removal was untimely and moved for remand to state court, but the district court denied the motion based on equitable tolling. On appeal, the court first rejected GateHouse’s argument that plaintiffs’ class certification attempt in state court after the remand reset the removal clock because “once commenced, that clock cannot be reset by later developments in a case, including those tied to class certification.” The court noted that the prior remand was improper, as a denial of class certification “‘does not divest federal courts of [CAFA] jurisdiction.’” However, despite this, “the district court was not authorized to absolve GateHouse of the untimeliness of its second removal.” The Supreme Court recently addressed the viability of equitable tolling in the removal context in Enbridge, and held that § 1446(b)(1)’s 30-day deadline cannot be equitably tolled. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s judgment with instructions to again remand the case to state court.

Full PDF Opinion