Youssef v. Great American Life Insurance Company

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILIANNE YOUSSEF, No. 25-5232 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Respondent, 2:25-cv-02545-SPG-SHK v. MEMORANDUM* GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Petitioner.

LILIANNE YOUSSEF, Individually, and No. 25-5268 on behalf of the Class, D.C. No. 2:25-cv-02545-SPG-SHK Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation,

Defendant - Appellant,

DOES, 1 through 10, Inclusive,

Defendant - Appellee.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 3, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, KOH, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Lilianne Youssef filed this putative class action in California state court,

asserting a single claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210. Youssef sought only equitable relief: an

injunction and equitable restitution. Great American Life Insurance Company

(“GALIC”) removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Youssef moved to remand to state court, and

the district court granted her motion on two grounds: that the district court lacked

equitable jurisdiction over her UCL claim and that Youssef lacked Article III

standing to seek injunctive relief. GALIC timely appeals the district court’s order

remanding the action to state court.

1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district

court’s remand for lack of equitable jurisdiction. “[E]quitable jurisdiction is

distinct from subject matter jurisdiction.” Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd., 153 F.4th

907, 916 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308,

** The panel previously ordered this case submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 25-5268 1314 (9th Cir. 2022)). Because the district court remanded for a reason “other than

lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” this appeal is not precluded by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d). Harmston v. City & County of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1277 (9th

Cir. 2010). “Where appellate jurisdiction is not barred by [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(d),

we review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a removed case.” Casola v.

Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947, 953 (9th Cir. 2024).

2. The district court erred in remanding Youssef’s action for lack of

equitable jurisdiction because it did not give GALIC the opportunity to waive its

defense that Youssef has an adequate remedy at law. After the district court

entered its remand order, this court clarified that “district courts are empowered to

remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction, but only

after the removing defendant is given the opportunity to waive the adequate-

remedy-at-law issue to keep the case in federal court.” Ruiz, 153 F.4th at 909; see

also id. at 918 (holding that a defendant “can defeat remand on equitable

jurisdiction grounds by waiving the adequate-remedy-at-law issue”). In the district

court, GALIC indicated its intent to waive that issue in its proposed surreply,

stating that “if this Court declines to remand this case to state court, GALIC will

not seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s UCL claim based on the adequacy of her legal

remedies.”

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand so that GALIC

3 25-5268 “can perfect its waiver.” Id. On remand, the district court shall enter an order

recalling the remand and shall notify the Los Angeles County Superior Court that

the district court has resumed jurisdiction over the action. See Acad. of Country

Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2021).

3. Because we vacate the district court’s order remanding the entire

action on the basis of equitable jurisdiction, we need not reach whether the district

court erred in treating the lack of Article III standing over Youssef’s request for

injunctive relief as an additional basis for remand, nor whether the district court

could sever and remand Youssef’s request for injunctive relief alone.1

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1 Because we vacate the district court’s remand order in this appeal, GALIC’s separate petition for permission to appeal the remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) in No. 25-5232 is denied as moot.

4 25-5268