David Ehrman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cox Communications, Inc.; Coxcom, LLC; Cox Communications California, LLC, and Does, 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants-Appellants.
and Submitted July 11, 2019 Pasadena, California
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California D.C. No. 8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM James
V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Katherine Tracy Van Dusen (argued), Richard R. Patch, Scott
C. Hall, and Philip D.W. Miller, Coblentz Patch Duffy &
Bass LLP, San Francisco, California, for
S. Soderstrom (argued), Soderstrom Law PC, Irvine,
California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND,
Circuit Judges, and MICHAEL H. SIMON, [*] District
/ Class Action Fairness Act
panel reversed the district court's order remanding to
state court an action that was removed to federal court by
the defendants pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
seeking to remand, plaintiff argued that the defendants had
failed to adequately plead the existence of minimal diversity
in their removal motion.
panel held that defendants' jurisdictional allegations,
which provided a short and plain statement of the
parties' citizenship based on information and belief,
satisfied the defendants' burden of pleading minimal
diversity. The panel further held that the district court
misconstrued CAFA's pleading requirements by holding that
defendants' jurisdictional allegations fell short, and by
requiring defendants to support those allegations with
evidence in response to only a facial - not a factual or
as-applied - challenge.
SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
defendant removes a case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d), how much evidence of the parties' citizenships
must it provide? If the defendant's citizenship
allegations are unchallenged factually, the answer is none.
In such cases, all a removing party must do is provide a
short and plain statement of the grounds for removal. Because
Defendants Cox Communications' (and related
entities') notice of removal did just that, and because
Plaintiff David Ehrman did not factually attack Cox's
jurisdictional allegations, we reverse the district
court's grant of Ehrman's motion to remand.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
filed a class action complaint against Cox in Orange County
Superior Court, alleging that Cox had engaged in unlawful
business practices related to the advertisement and sale of
residential internet services. Ehrman brought the case on
behalf of himself and "all consumers in California who
paid for [Cox's] ...