The plain language of Section 22’s first sentence now gives federal courts exclusive federal jurisdiction over “covered class actions” that are “brought to enforce any liability or duty created by” the Securities Act. 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). There is no question that this case is a “covered class action.”

SLUSA added an express carve-out to the jurisdictional provisions of the 1933 Act, i.e., that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 1933 Act claims “except as provided in section 77p of this title with respect to covered class actions.” 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). Under Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Act, this carve-out could be excised in its entirety without any discernable effect, violating a cardinal canon of statutory interpretation.

at 797-98. The Luther II court goes on to explain that it: cannot agree with [Knox’s] reading of 15 United States Code section 77v[,] . . . [which] does not say ‘except as provided in section 77p(f)(2),’ the definition of covered class action. Instead, it refers to all of 15 United States Code section 77p, not just the definitional provision.

The Securities Act’s non-removal provision is subject to an express exception: “Except as provided in section 77p(c) of this title [(i.e. Section 16(c))], no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States.” 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a) (amendment in italics). That exception applies to a “covered class action . . . involving a covered security,” 15 U.S.C. § 77p(c), as numerous courts have found.13 Rubin, 2007 WL 778485, at *6 (denying motion to remand class action raising Securities Act claims); Purowitz, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46911, at *2-3 (same); Lowinger, 2005 WL 2592229, at *4 (same); 13 Section 16(c) provides as follows: Removal of covered class actions.

In re Fannie Mae 2008 Sec. Litig., 2009 WL 4067266, at *2; see also 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a) (“The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction of offenses and violations under [the Securities Act] . . . and, concurrent with State and Territorial courts, except as provided in section 77p of this title with respect to covered class actions, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Securities Act]”).11 This Court should not defer resolution of an important federal question to a 10 In Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 2009 WL 3271368, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009), also relied upon by PIMCO, the defendant in a Securities Act case in state court raised jurisdictional defenses based on SLUSA and the Class Action Fairness Act. The state court judge stayed the action and directed the parties to file a federal declaratory judgment complaint so the state court could obtain the federal court’s guidance on federal law.

Section 22(a) bars removal of cases “arising under” the 1933 Act, “except as provided in [Section 16(c)].” 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). For this exception to have any meaning, it must apply to some subset of cases that actually arise under the 1933 Act.

. Defendants further argue that even if state courts had concurrent jurisdiction, the Securities Act’s non-removal provision is subject to an exception under Section 16(c) (15 U.S.C. § 77v(a)). (Doc.

Nevertheless, federal courts indisputably have original jurisdiction over Securities Act claims. See 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). If a case is properly removed to federal court under another statutory mechanism—such as the bankruptcy jurisdiction removal Case 2:12-cv-00791-WKW-WC Document 53 Filed 11/19/12 Page 38 of 47 31 provision in 28 U.S.C. §1452(a), the Class Action Fairness Act, or the FDIC removal provision here—the district court acquires original jurisdiction over any Securities Act claims in the case.

Further, as noted above, Section 22 of the 1933 Act explicitly states that in cases such as this “no case arising under this title and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court [in] the United States.” See 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). In 1933, in response to securities scandals that in the late 1920s had laid waste to the American capital markets, Congress enacted the Securities Act – the first of the federal securities laws to protect investors.

Further, as noted above, Section 22 of the 1933 Act explicitly states that in cases such as this “no case arising under this title and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court [in] the United States.” See 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a). In 1933, in response to securities scandals that in the late 1920s had laid waste to the American capital markets, Congress enacted the Securities Act – the first of the federal securities laws to protect investors.