The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision on January 8, 2026, in *Young v. Renewal by Andersen, LLC*, addressing a consumer class action that raises questions about federal jurisdiction over state law claims.

Brenda Young filed the class action lawsuit in California state court against three defendants: Renewal by Andersen LLC, Andersen Corporation, and River City Window & Door, Inc. The complaint asserts two primary claims under California consumer protection statutes.

Young's lawsuit alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), codified in sections 17200 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code, and the state's False Advertising Law (FAL), found in sections 17500 et seq. The plaintiff seeks equitable restitution and public injunctive relief for both claims, typical remedies available under California's consumer protection framework.

The legal dispute took a procedural turn when the defendants removed Young's action from state court to federal court. The companies invoked the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a federal statute codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) that allows defendants to move certain class actions from state to federal court under specific circumstances.

Congress enacted CAFA in 2005 to address concerns about forum shopping and inconsistent class action rulings across different state courts. The law permits removal when the proposed class includes at least 100 members, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and there is minimal diversity between the parties, meaning at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states.

Young opposed the removal, filing a motion to remand the case back to California state court. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, presiding under District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta, granted Young's remand motion. The court's decision to send the case back to state court suggests it found the federal court lacked proper jurisdiction under CAFA or that other factors warranted remand.

The defendants appealed the district court's remand order to the Ninth Circuit. Under federal law, remand orders in removed cases are generally immediately appealable, allowing defendants to challenge jurisdictional determinations without waiting for final judgment.

The Ninth Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Maria-Elena James Sanchez, along with District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal from the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. The panel submitted the case on December 5, 2025, and unanimously concluded oral arguments were unnecessary under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).

The court's decision is marked as a memorandum opinion "not appropriate for publication" and carries no precedential value except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation indicates the panel viewed the legal issues as well-settled rather than presenting novel questions requiring published guidance.

The underlying consumer protection claims reflect California's robust statutory framework for addressing unfair business practices. The UCL provides broad authority to challenge business conduct that is unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent, while the FAL specifically targets misleading advertising practices. Both statutes serve as important enforcement mechanisms for consumer rights in the nation's largest state economy.

Window and door companies have faced increased scrutiny in recent years over marketing practices, particularly regarding energy efficiency claims and installation quality. Consumer protection agencies and private plaintiffs have challenged various practices in the home improvement industry, including misleading representations about product performance and pricing.

The procedural battle over federal versus state court jurisdiction reflects broader tensions in class action litigation. Defendants often prefer federal court for its perceived consistency and procedural advantages, while plaintiffs frequently favor state courts for more favorable substantive law and jury pools.

The Ninth Circuit's handling of this appeal will determine whether the case proceeds in California state court as Young preferred or returns to federal court as the defendants sought. The remand dispute highlights the complex jurisdictional questions that can arise when state law claims are packaged as federal class actions.

This case demonstrates the ongoing importance of forum selection in class action litigation and the careful analysis courts must undertake when evaluating CAFA jurisdiction. The outcome will affect not only the immediate parties but potentially similar consumer protection cases involving home improvement companies throughout the circuit.

The business defendants in this case represent significant players in the window and door industry, with Andersen Corporation being a well-established manufacturer and Renewal by Andersen operating as a subsidiary focused on replacement windows. The involvement of multiple corporate entities suggests the potential scope of the alleged consumer protection violations may extend beyond a single business location or practice.