The attorney general brought a parens patriae action in state court against a points-based vacation club alleging violations of Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act and promotional contests statutes.  The attorney general sought rescission of the club memberships and restitution of the fees paid by Louisiana citizens who participated.  Defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging that it was a class action or mass action subject to the Class Action Fairness Act.  The state moved to remand the case to state court, citing Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics. The court first determined that the attorney general’s action was not a mass action because Louisiana was the only named plaintiff, and the applicability of CAFA to parens patriae actions characterized as mass actions is not in dispute after Hood.  The court then turned to the question of whether this parens patriae case was a class action. The court first reviewed Hood and concluded that a class must be asserted (rather than assumed or implicated) in order to fall under the class action prong of CAFA.  The court then held that a parens patriae action brought under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) was not a class action. Past Louisiana case law held that the attorney general could bring a LUTPA action as a class action, but that was merely “one method” of proceeding under LUTPA, which the attorney general might choose “for the procedural safeguards it offers.”  In this case, “the attorney general . . . chose not to bring a class action, as the attorney general was entitled to do. Considering the language of CAFA—as well as Hood—it would be inappropriate to allow the Defendants to alter that choice.”  The case is not removable under CAFA, and was remanded to state court.