Reversing earlier panel decisions in Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (reported in our October 2013, March 2014 and July 2014 issues), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the petitions for coordination filed in those cases were "in legal effect proposals for those actions to be tried jointly" under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 13-56306 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (en banc). CAFA authorizes removal of "mass actions," defined as "any civil action . . . in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). In concluding that the petitions for coordination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 404 were proposals for joint trials, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs had sought coordination "for all purposes." In addition, the plaintiffs had relied on the danger of inconsistent judgments and conflicting determinations of liability, issues which would only be resolved by joint trials, not joint pre-trial proceedings. The court left open the question whether "a petition that expressly sought only pre-trial coordination" would amount to "a proposal to try cases jointly."