Joining the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Farina v. Nokia Inc. applied relation-back analysis to determine that an amended pleading was a “new action” that was removable under CAFA. CAFA expressly applies only to civil actions “commenced on or after the date of enactment,” February 18, 2005. This action was first brought in 2001. Removal was attempted under federal question jurisdiction, but the case was subsequently remanded to state court after appeal. In December 2005 (after CAFA’s enactment), plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint that added a new defendant. Removal was not sought. Plaintiff then filed a Third Amended Complaint in February 2006 to substitute the proper entity for the previously added defendant. The newly substituted defendant then removed the action in February 2006 under CAFA. After plaintiff’s untimely motion to remand was denied by the district court, the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the Second Amended Complaint commenced a “new action” removable under CAFA because it added a “new and distinct” defendant that “placed new assets at risk of liability.” The court followed the “general approach” of the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits and applied state law principles governing the relation-back of pleadings. The court expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach of considering only the filing of the original complaint, relying on fairness considerations and on the presumption that when Congress enacted CAFA, it was “aware of the general principles of relation- back analysis.” The court further held that plaintiff waived the objection that defendants’ removal was untimely because plaintiff’s motion to remand was not Disaster narrowly averted filed within 30 days of removal.