In BP America, Inc v Oklahoma (July 29, 2010), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted BP leave to appeal the district court’s denial of removal jurisdiction under CAFA. BP had removed the case to federal court under CAFA’s “mass action” provision after the state Attorney General sued BP under various provisions of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. The district court held the lawsuit was not a “mass action” and remanded the case to state court. BP appealed the remand order under CAFA § 1453(c)(1), which allows a court of appeal to “accept an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the state court from which it is removed” if the petitioner makes a timely application. A court of appeals has discretion under this provision to hear such appeals notwithstanding the general prohibition of appeals from remand orders in § 1447(d). In considering whether to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal, the court stated that although it was a novel question in the Tenth Circuit, other circuits had addressed the issue and “left behind useful guidance.” The court analyzed the question under the First Circuit’s eight-factor test, and concluded that each factor favored appellate review. The court granted BP’s application for leave to appeal, noting that “whether to grant leave to appeal remains a matter ‘committed to the informed discretion of the reviewing court,’ and the factors we have outlined are no more than considerations or guides to help inform that analysis.”