Case Details


CAFA, Parens Patriae

Filing State



U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont




Myinfoguard v. Sorrell, No. 2:12-cv-00102 (D.Vt. Nov. 9, 2012).


Attorney general’s parens patriae claims under consumer protection statute are not removable under CAFA, state is real party in interest because only the state can seek civil penalties and injunction.

Case Description

Out of state defendants challenged the constitutionality of a Vermont consumer protection statute in federal court. Days later, the state sued the defendants in state court for violations of the statute. Defendants sought removal under CAFA. The state sought an injunction, civil penalties and restitution for consumers. The court concluded that the state is the real party in interest because the civil penalties and injunction are only available to the state, so the case was remanded to state court. In rejecting the defendants’ arguments, the court statied “In the woods of statutory interpretation, this Court may occasionally be convinced to take a road less traveled, but by advancing a rather tortured construction of the CPA, the Sellers are essentially asking the Court to bushwhack.”