Id. at 202. That exception – defining the word “order” – was extended to non-jurisdictional decisions by Green v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 274 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2001), where the decision in another case involved the “same defendants, and a similar factual situation and legal issue.” Id. at 268.
Finally, unlike previous “other paper” precedent, remember this is CAFA. The non-CAFA cases justify their result in part on a presumed intent of Congress requiring that removal statutes be read narrowly. That's not the case with CAFA - don’t forget that you have the Congressional purpose in enacting CAFA filling your sails – “ensuring Federal court consideration of interstate cases of national importance.” Knowles, 2013 WL 1104735, at *5.