Howard Bashman’s latest On Appeal column for Law.com explains that two circuit courts have interpreted the words “not less than 7 days after entry of the order” in the Class Action Fairness Act to mean “not more than 7 days after the entry of the order.” Says Bashman:

“In deciding that CAFA’s appellate review timing provision should be construed to mean exactly the opposite of what it says, both the 9th and 10th Circuits relied on the unusual, open–ended nature of the provision and also on legislative history suggesting that Congress, contrary to the language actually employed in the statute, had intended to impose a deadline for seeking appellate review.
Regrettably, both the 9th and 10th Circuits reached an incorrect and perhaps even dangerous result, and other federal appellate courts that are poised to resolve this issue should instead rule that CAFA’s appellate timing provision will be enforced according to its plain language.
The importance of having provisions that govern the time for seeking appellate review enforced according to their plain language cannot be overstated. It is extraordinarily rare to see court decisions holding that a statute means the opposite of what it actually says, and therefore those lawyers who request appellate review within the time that CAFA’s text allows will, in the 9th and 10th Circuits, be shocked to learn that their appeals were filed too late to be considered. That result is unacceptable.
When Congress decides that a statute should mean the opposite of what it says, the language of the statute actually changes as a result of Congress’ amendment. When a court decides that a statute should mean the opposite of what it says, the language of the statute remains the same, misleading those who are unaware of the court’s ruling.
There exists a narrow, judicially–created absurdity exception to the rule that statutes should be enforced according to their plain language, but CAFA’s appellate review timing provision does not qualify as absurd by any stretch of the imagination. To begin with, CAFA’s overriding purpose was to expand the ability of federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over large–dollar–value class actions. Allowing an expanded period in which to pursue appellate review of an order deciding whether a given class action belongs in federal court would seem to further Congress’ goal.