Key Points

  • The Third Circuit denied Amazon's petition to appeal a remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c).
  • A suit by the New Jersey Commissioner of Labor under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:1A-1.12 is not a class action under CAFA because the statute lacks Rule 23's defining characteristics.
  • The state statute has no class certification mechanism, no opt-out procedures, no numerosity or commonality requirements, and no specified notice obligations.
  • Because CAFA jurisdiction never attached, the district court correctly remanded the case to state court.
  • The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief supporting Amazon.

The Third Circuit on Monday denied Amazon's petition to appeal a remand order, holding that a New Jersey labor enforcement suit brought on behalf of Amazon delivery drivers is not a class action under federal law and must proceed in state court.

Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for a panel that included Judges Matey and Montgomery-Reeves, rejected Amazon's argument that the state commissioner's lawsuit duplicated an earlier private class action and should be treated as one for jurisdictional purposes.

"We decline Amazon's invitation to do so," Judge Bibas wrote in denying the petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c).

The ruling keeps in state court a suit filed by Kevin D. Jarvis, the Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, against Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Logistics Inc. under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:1A-1.12. The commissioner sued on behalf of a group of Amazon Delivery Partners, workers who transport packages for the e-commerce giant.

Amazon had removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, which grants district courts jurisdiction over class actions meeting certain thresholds. The company argued the state suit essentially replicated a prior class action brought by delivery drivers themselves and should therefore fall under CAFA's jurisdictional reach.

The district court disagreed and remanded the case to state court. Amazon sought Third Circuit review under CAFA's provision allowing discretionary appeals of remand orders.

Judge Bibas explained that CAFA defines a "class action" as any civil action "filed under [R]ule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute." Under Third Circuit precedent, a state statute qualifies as similar to Rule 23 only if it contains the "defining characteristics" of the federal rule. If "the relevant state rules are dissimilar to Rule 23," the case "falls beyond the scope of CAFA jurisdiction," the court noted, citing its 2023 decision in Erie Insurance Exchange by Stephenson v. Erie Indemnity Co.

The New Jersey statute under which the commissioner sued, the court found, lacks most of those defining characteristics.

"As the District Court observed, it features no class certification mechanism and no opt-out procedures," Judge Bibas wrote. "It lacks features resembling Rule 23's prerequisites, such as numerosity or commonality. And it does not specify what notice must be given to absent class members."

Because the New Jersey statute is not similar to Rule 23, the commissioner's enforcement action is not a "class action" under CAFA's definition. That meant the district court never had subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed case in the first place.

"Because the action does not fall within CAFA as a 'class action,' the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over it," Judge Bibas wrote. "So it lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay, and correctly remanded the suit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief supporting Amazon's position.

The decision reflects the Third Circuit's application of its "defining characteristics" test from Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Co. Under that framework, courts examine whether a state procedural mechanism shares the core features of Rule 23—including certification requirements, opt-out rights, numerosity and commonality prerequisites, and notice obligations.

New Jersey's labor enforcement statute allows the commissioner to bring suit on behalf of workers to enforce state labor laws.

The case now returns to state court, where the commissioner's claims against Amazon will proceed. The Third Circuit's order was dated October 5, 2026.