The Seventh Circuit recently addressed a novel CAFA issue and slammed the door on a plaintiffs’ effort to create a loophole in that statute. In Bullard v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., 144 plaintiffs filed suit in Illinois state court seeking damages from four entities. The defendants removed the case under CAFA’s provision which creates federal jurisdiction over “mass actions” in which plaintiffs propose a trial involving the claims of 100 or more litigants and minimal diversity and amount-incontroversy requirements are met. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that their complaint never proposed a trial, they would be happy to win by summary judgment or settlement, and the case could only be removed on the eve of trial after a final pretrial order set the number of parties for trial. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the lower court’s conclusion was “the only sensible reading” of the relevant CAFA provision. In a characteristically direct opinion, Judge Easterbrook decried plaintiffs’ attempt to create a loophole in CAFA whereby cases satisfying federal jurisdictional requirements would not be removable simply because the complaint had not “proposed” a trial of 100 or more litigants. “Courts,” he explained, “do not read statutes to make entire subsections vanish into the night.” He agreed with the district court that the complaint proposed “one proceeding and thus one trial,” regardless of whether a trial covering 100 or more plaintiffs actually ensued, and that the joinder of multiple plaintiffs because their claims arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions and had common questions of law or fact was “exactly when a single trial is appropriate.”