FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT B R OADWAY GRILL, INC ., a C a lifornia C orporation, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. VISA INC .; VISA INTER N ATIONAL ASSOC IATION; VISA USA INC .,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 17-15499

D.C . No. 4:16-c v-04040-PJH OPINION

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 21, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ary

M . Sc hroe de r a

nd JohnnieB . R awlinson, C irc uit Judge s, a n d Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n, * Distric t Judge . Opinion by

Judge Sc hroe de r, C irc uit Judge : W e de a l with provisions of the C l a ss Ac t ion Fa irne ss Ac t (“ C AFA” ) to e nsure tha

t la rge c la ss a c tion c a se s a

re he ard in fe de ra l c ourt. 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d).



# F IL ED MAY18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble Ste ve n Pa

ul Loga n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion.The issue be fore us is whe the r pla intiffs m ay am e nd the ir c om pla int, a fte r a

c a se ha s be e n re m ove d to fe de ra l c ourt, to c ha nge the de finition of the

c la ss so a s to e lim inat e m inim a l dive rsity an d the re by

dive st the fe de ra l c ourt of jurisdic t ion. W e hold pla i ntiffs m ay

not do so a

nd c la rify tha t the range of am e ndm e nts pe rm itte d unde r our prior opinion in Be nk o v . Quality

Loan Se rv ic e C

orp. , 789 F.3d 1111 (9th C ir. 2015), upon which the distric t c ourt re lie d, is ve ry na rrow. Pla intiff, a

C a lifornia

re sta urant, file d this a c tion in C a lifornia sta te c ourt a ga inst Visa

Inc . a nd re late d c orporations c la im i ng tha t Visa is viola ting thesta

te antitrust la

ws by fixing ra t e s a nd pre ve nting m e rc ha

n t s from a pply ing a surc ha rge for the use of c re dit c ards. The c om pla int de sc ribe d the c la ss a s “ a ll C a lifornia individuals, busine sse s an d othe r e ntitie s who a c c e pte d Visa -brande d c ards in C a lifornia sinc e Ja nua ry 1, 2004 . . . .”

De fe nda nt c om pa nie s (“ Visa ” ) are c itiz e ns of C a lifornia

and De la ware . Pla intiff c la ss a s de sc ribe d in theorigina l sta te c ourt c om pla i nt inc lude d both C a lifornia and non-C a lifornia c itiz e ns. B roa dwa y Grill is the n am e d pla intiff a

n d is a C a lifornia

c o rporation. Visa

re m ove d to fe d e ra l distric t c o urt be c a

u se C AFA’ s m inim a l dive rsity re q uire m e nt wa s sa

tisfie d. Unde r C AFA the re is suffic i e nt dive rsity to e sta blish fe de ra l dive rsity

jurisdic tion so long a s one c l a ss m e m

be r ha s c itiz e nship diverse from that of one de fe nda nt. 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d)(2)(A). Sinc e m a ny m e rc ha nts doing busine ss in C a lifornia , a nd 2m e m

b e rs of the c la ss a s origina lly de sc ribe d, a

re not c itiz e ns of C a lifornia , the re quire m e nt wa s m e t. Afte r Visa

re m ove d to theDistric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , B roa dwa

y Grill m ove d to re m and on the the ory tha t the c a se qua lifie d a s one of C AFA’ s e xc e ptions to the e xe rc ise of fe de ra l jurisdic tion. There le va nt e xc e ption is the

so-c a lle d “ loc a l c ontrove rsy ” e x c e ption for c a se s in whic h twothirds of thec l a ss m e m

be rs a re c itiz e ns of the sta

te of filing a

nd a “ signific ant” de fe nda n t is a c itiz e n of tha

t sta te a s we ll. 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d)(4). Thedistric t c ourt c orre c tly

de nie d the m otion to re m a n d be c a use the c l a ss, on its fa c e , inc lude d m any non-c itiz e n s of C a lifornia , a nd B roa d way Grill c ould not e sta

blish two-thirds we re C a lifornia

c itiz e ns. It wa s at this point tha

t B roa dwa

y Grill sought le ave to a

m e nd the c om

pla int to c h ange Pla intiff c la ss to inc lude only “ C a lifornia c itiz e ns,” in orde r to e lim inate m inim a l dive rsity . The distric t c ourt gra n te d le ave to a

m e nd a nd orde re d the c a se re m ande d to the sta

t e c ourt. W

hile the distric t c ourt a c k

nowle d ge d the ge ne ra l rule that jurisdic tion is de te rm i ne d at the tim e of re m ova l, a nd post-re m ova l am e ndm e nts c annot e lim inate jurisdic tion, thec ourt re lie d on a n e x c e p tion, a ppa re ntly unique to our c irc uit, pe rm itting a m e ndm e nt in lim

ite d c irc um sta

nc e s to a dd a lle gations of underly ing fa c ts tha t c l arify the nat ure of the c la im s for purpose s 3of de te rm ining C A FA jurisdic tion. Se e Be nk o , 789 F.3d a

t 1117 (holding tha

t in c e rta in c irc um sta

nc e s “pla intiffs should be pe rm itte d to a

m e nd a c om pla i nt to c la rify issue s pe rta ining to fe de ra l jurisdic tion unde r C A FA” ). In Be nk o , the pla i ntiffs we re pe rm itte d to se t out thepe rc e nta ge of c la im s tha t we re a ga inst the in-sta t e de fe nda

nt in orde r to show it wa s a “ signific ant de fe nda n t” within the C AFA e xc e ption to fe de ra l jurisdic tion. Be nk o ha s c re ate d som e unc e rta inty in the distric t c ourts a s to whe n postre m ova l a m e ndm e nts m a

y be a l lowe d. Se e Lope

z v . Ae rote k

, Inc . , 2017 W L 253948, a t *2 (C .D. C a l. Ja

n . 19, 2017) (not allowing a n am e ndm e nt tha

t a dde d a ne w de fe nda

nt to potentia lly

qua lify for the loc a l c ontrove rsy e xc e ption); Rosse t ti v . Ste arn’s Prod. Inc . , 2016 W L 3277295, a t *1 (C .D. C a l . June 6, 2016) (not a llowing a

n am e ndm e nt tha

t would c ha

nge the c la ss from

a nationa l c la ss to a C a lifornia c itiz e n c la ss); C

he n v . e Bay , Inc . , 2016 W L 835512, a t *2 n.1 (N.D. C a l. M ar. 4, 2016) (e ffe c tive ly a llowing a

m e n dm e nt a

n d orde ring re m and of a c om pla i nt tha t re stric te d a

c la s s to c itiz e ns of C a l ifornia , rathe r tha n re s ide nts); In reAnthe m Inc . Data Bre ac h Litig. , 129 F.Supp. 3d 887, 894–96 (N.D. C a l . 2015) (a llowing a

m e n dm e nt of a

c om pla int so tha

t a c la ss re pre se nte d only

M issouri c itiz e ns rathe r tha

n re side n ts a

nd orde ring re m and).

4The ba sic jurisdic tiona l provisions of C A FA are sim ple . Unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1332 (d)(2), (d)(5), them atte r in c ontrove rsy m ust e xc e e d $5,000,000, the num be r of pla intiffs m

u s t be 100 or m ore and dive rsity is e sta b l ishe d whe n “ any m e m b e r of a c la s s of pla intiffs is a

c itiz e n of a

sta te diffe re nt from

any de fe nda

nt.” Thus, unlike

othe r c ivil a c tions, whe re the re m ust be c om

p le te dive rsity

be twe e n nam e d pla intiffs a

nd de fe nda

nts, C AFA re quire s only

what is te rm e d “ m inim a l dive rsity .” The la

w provide s m inim a l dive rsity is to bede t e rm i ne d a s of the tim e of re m ova l. 28 U.S.C . § 1332 (d)(7). C ongre ss’ s inte nt to broa de n fe de ra l c ourt c la ss a c tion jurisdic tion is illustra te d by the provision for e xpe d ite d a p pe lla te re vie w whe n a

distric t c ourt orde rs re m and. 28 U.S.C . § 1453(c ). Suc h a ppe a ls m ust be de c ide d within sixty da y s. W e have a

ppe l late jurisdic iton pursua nt to tha t provision. W e have he ld our re vie w of re m and orde rs is denovo. Bride w e ll-Sle dgev . Blue C ross of C al. , 798 F.3d 923, 927 (9th C ir. 2015). In e xe rc i sing tha

t a ppe lla te jurisdic tion, the c irc u its ha ve una nim ously and re pe ate dly

he ld tha t whe the r re m and is prope r m ust be a sc e rta ine d

on the ba sis of the p le a dings a

t the tim e of re m ova l. The rule goe s ba c k to Pullman C o. v . J e nk ins , 305 U.S. 534, 537– 38 (1939). Our le a ding c a se in the C AFA c o nte xt is Mondragon v . C

apital One

Auto Fin. , 736 F.3d 880, 883 (9th C ir. 2013). Se e also

5Doy lev . One W e st Bank , FSB , 764 F.3d 1097, 1098 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [T] he Distric t C ourt should ha

ve de te rm ine d

the c itiz e nship of the propose d pla i ntiff c la ss ba se d on Doy le ’ s c om

pla int a s of the date the c a se be c a m e re m o va

ble .” ) (inte rna l quota t ion om itte d). The othe r c irc uits a re in c o m ple te a g re e m e nt. As theSe ve nth C irc uit ha s sa id, “ re m ova l c a se s pre se nt c onc e rns a bout forum

m anipula tion tha t c ounse l a ga inst a llowing a pla intiff’ s post-re m ova l a m e ndm e nts to a ffe c t jurisdic tion.” In reBurlington N orthe r n Santa Fe

Ry ., C o . , 606 F.3d 379, 381 (7th C ir. 2010). Se e also Harge t t v . Re v C laims, LLC, —

F.3d — , 2017 W L 1405034, a t *3 (8th C ir. Apr. 14, 2017); In Touc h C onc e pts, Inc . v . C

e l lc o P’ship , 788 F.3d 98, 101 (2d C ir. 2015); C

e d ar Lodge Plantation, L.L.C

. v . C SHV Fairw ay

Vie w I, L.L.C . , 768 F.3d 425, 429 (5th C ir. 2014) (“ Allowing C e da r Lodge to a

void fe de ra l jurisdic tion through a

post-re m ova l am e ndm e nt wold turn the polic y unde rly ing C AFA on its he a d.” ). This una nim ity se e m s firm ly

to e sta b lish tha t pla intiffs’ atte m pts to a m e nd a c om pla int a fte r re m ova l to e lim inat e fe de ra l jurisdic tion a re doom e d to fa ilure . In Be nk o , howe ve r, this c ourt a llowe d pla intiffs to a m e nd the c om

pla int a fte r re m ova l, in orde r to c la

rify jurisdic tion. W e did so whe n the am e ndm e nt did not a lte r the de finition of the

c la ss, but, ra

the r, ha d the e ffe c t of e xpla i ning theim pa c t of the c om

pla int’ s a lle gations on one of the de fe nda

nts. This im

pa c t wa s 6jurisdic tiona l ly signific an t

be c a use C AFA c onta i ns a

n e xc e ption to the e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion on the

ba sis of m i nim a l dive rsity , whe re a loc a l de fe nda

n t will be e spe c ia l ly im pa c te d, the “ l oc a l c ontrove rsy ” e xc e p tion. Se e Be nk o , 789 F.3d a

t 1117. Our opinion in Be nk o e xpla ine d tha

t the am e ndm e nt se rve d only to provide som e am plific ation, for fe de ra l jurisdic tiona l purpose s, of the nature of pla intiffs’ a lle gations. Theam e ndm e nt provide d “ e s tim at e s of the pe rc e n ta ge of tota l c la im s a sse rte d a ga inst [thein-sta te de fe nda

nt] ” in orde r to show tha

t the in-sta

te de fe nda n t wa s “ s ignific ant,” for purpose s of § 1332(d)(4). Id. The am e ndm e nt in this c a se , howe ve r, did not provide an e xpla nation of the a lle gations, but c ha

nge d the de finition of the c la s s itse lf. Inste a d

of be ing c om pose d of a ll the m e rc ha

n t s in thesta

te of C a lifornia , re ga

rdle ss of c itiz e nship, the c la s s, a s de fine d in theam e n de d c om pla int, be c am e e xc lusive ly c om pose d of C a lifornia c itiz e ns. W e c o nc l ude suc h a n am e ndm e nt is outside

the e xc e p tion re c o gniz e d in Be nk

o and thus c annot a ffe c t the re m ova bility of the a c tion. Be nk o itse lf re c ogniz e d

tha t C A FA “ favors fe de ra l jurisdic tion” and tha t only c e rta in “ C AFA-spe c ific issue s,” suc h a s whe the r a pa rtic ula r in-sta te de fe nda n t wa s “ s ignific ant,” tha

t we re highly unlike ly

to be a ddre sse d in a

sta te c ourt c om pla int, justifie d a llowing a m e ndm e nts. Id. at 1116–17. It wa s only unde r those lim ite d c irc um sta

nc e s, whe re the “ pla intiffs c an provide a fe de ra l c ourt with

7the i nform ation” tha t a m e n dm e nts tha

t c ould pote ntia lly

a ffe c t jurisdic tion we re a llowe d. Id. A c la s s de finition, howeve r, will a l way s be pre se nt in a ny c la ss a c tion c om

p la int, sta te or fe de ra l. The am e ndm e nt in this c a se did not m e re ly provide re le va

nt inform ation. It c h ange d the nature of the a c tion. W e have not found a

ny othe r c irc uit de c isions pe rm itting post-rem ova l am e ndm e nt of the c om

pla i nt to a ffe c t the e xiste nc e of fe de ra l jurisdic tion a nd c e rta inly none pe rm itting alte ra tion of the m ake up of the c la ss. A ve ry re c e nt de c ision of theEighth C irc uit de a lt with a n issue ve ry

sim ila r to the issue be fore us. Tha t c ourt re fuse d to c onside r a post-re m ova l am e n dm e nt tha t would ha

ve na rrowe d the origina l c la ss of Arka nsa s “ re side n ts” to Arka

nsa s “ c itiz e ns.” Se e Harge tt , 2017 W L 1405034, a t *3. Inde e d, thosepla intiffs m a de m any of the sa m e argum e nts B roa dwa

y Grill m a k e s he re , inc luding c onte nding tha t the origina l c la ss de finition re fe rring to Arka nsa s re side nts c ould ha

ve be e n unde rstood to m e an only c itiz e ns. In tha

t c a se , the distric t c ourt ha d, a s in this c a se , pe rm i tte d a n am e ndm e nt be fore re m an ding. Se e id. at *1–2. TheEighth C irc uit re j e c te d the am e ndm e nt, noting tha

t C AFA’ s la

ngua ge de m ands tha

t c la ss c itiz e nship “ m

ust be de te rm i ne d a s of the d ate of the ple a ding giving fe de ra l jurisdic tion.” Id. at *3, (c iting 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d)(7)). Tha t m e ant the c la ss inc lude d non-c itiz e ns a nd he nc e m inim a l dive rsity wa s satisfie d . W e a g re e . 8The Te nth C irc uit, in a n unpublishe d

disposition, re a c he d e sse ntia lly the sam e de c ision. Se e Re e c e v . AES C orp. , 638 F. App’ x 755, 775 (10th C i r. 2016). The re pla intiffs’ sta

te c ourt c om

pla int de sc ribe d a

c la s s of Okla

hom a re side nts. Afte r re m ova l, pla intiffs sought le ave to a m e nd the c l a ss to c ove r only Okla hom a c itiz e ns, but thedistric t

c ourt de nie d the m otion. In a ffirm ing, theTe nth C irc uit note d tha t “ [a ] lthough this c la ss de finition m ight ha ve be e n e ffe c tive if e m

p loy e d whe n the c a se wa s first file d, post-re m ova l a m e ndm e nts a

re ine ffe c tive to dive st a fe de ra l c o urt of jurisdic t ion.” Id. In a sim ila r spirit, theSe c ond a

n d Se v e nth C irc uits ha

ve re fuse d to give e ffe c t to a m e ndm e nts tha

t would ha

ve e lim inate d

the c la im s a l le ge d on be ha lf of a c la ss. Se eIn Touc h C

onc e p ts, Inc . , 788 F.3d a

t 102; Burlington N

orthe rn Santa Fe Ry . , 606 F.3d a

t 381. Thec ourts rule d jurisdic tion wa s e sta blishe d a s of the tim e of re m ova l. All of the s e de c isions a

re in a c c ord with C A FA’ s le gisla tive history , a history tha t is ofte n c i te d. Se e , e .g. , B e nk o , 789 F.3d a

t 1116; C e dar Lodge Plantation , 768 F.3d a

t 428. Thehistory

shows tha

t C ongre ss wa s we ll a

ware of the c onc e rn tha

t e xpa nding fe de ra l c l a ss a c tion jurisdic tion to re quire only m inim a l dive rsity would c re ate insta

bility , a s c la ss m e m

be rship c o uld c h ange during the c ourse of litiga

tion. Se e Se nate R e port, S. R e p. 109-14, S. Re p. No. 14, 109th 9C ong. 1st Se ss. 2005, 2005 W L 627977 *68 (Fe

b. 28, 2005) (“ Se nate R e port” ). The Se nate R e port obse rve d tha t this c onc e rn wa s groundle ss, pre c ise ly be c a use of the rule tha

t post-re m ova l a

m e ndm e n ts c annot a ffe c t jurisdic tion. Id. at *70. C ongre ss spe c ific a lly

note d tha t, unde r C AFA, if m inim a l dive rsity e xists a t the tim e of re m ova l, jurisdic tion c o uld not bedive ste d , e ve n if the situa tion c ha nge d a s a re s ult of a

late r e ve nt, “ whe the r be y ond the pla intiff’ s c o ntrol or there sult of his volition.” Id. at *70–71. In this c a se pla intiffs ha ve atte m pte d to do wha

t C AFA wa s inte nde d to pre v e nt: a n am e ndm e nt c h an ging thenature of the c l a ss to dive st the fe de ra l c o urt of jurisdic tion. W e the re fore re m a in in a gre e m e nt with the othe r c irc uits in holding tha t C AFA m e ans wha

t it sa y s— c itiz e nship of thec la ss for purpose s of m inim a l dive rsity m ust be de te rm ine d a s of the ope ra tive c o m pla int a t the date of re m ova l. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1332(d)(7) (“ C itiz e nship of them e m be rs of the propose d pla intiff c la ss sha l l be de te rm ine d . . . a s of the date of the c om pla int or a

m e n de d c om

pla int . . . indic ating thee xiste nc e of Fe de ra l jurisdic tion.” ). In B e nk o , we c re ate d a

sm a ll e xc e ption to the

ge ne ra l rule tha

t ba rs post-re m o v a l a

m e ndm e n t s re late d to jurisdic tion, a

nd this understa

nda bly c re at e d som e unc e rta inty in the distric t c ourts. Be nk o a llowe d am e ndm e nts for purpose s of c la rify ing the re lationship be twe e n the pa rtie s and the e ffe c t of the c la ss c la im s on pa rtic ula r de fe nda n ts. This wa s 10pe rm itte d in Be nk o so tha t the distric t c ourt c ould de c ide whe t he r re m and to sta

te c ourt wa s a

ppropria te unde r the loc a l c ontrove rsy e xc e ption. Be nk

o did not, howe v e r, strike a

ne w path to pe rm it pla i ntiffs to a m e nd the ir c la ss de finition, add or re m ove de fe nda

nts, or a dd or re m ove c la i m s in suc h a wa y tha t would a lte r the e sse ntia l jurisdic tiona l a

na ly sis. R e c ogniz ing suc h a pat h in this c irc uit would c onflic t with sta

tutory la n gua g e and with the de c isions of the othe r c irc u its. Se e , e .g., Harge tt , 2017 W L 1405034. B e c a use the e xiste nc e of m inim a l dive rsity in this c a s e m

ust be de te rm ine d on the ba sis of theple a dings a t the tim e of re m o va l in a c c orda nc e with thege ne ra l rule , the orde r of the distric t c ourt re m anding thec a se on the ba sis of apostre m ova l a m e ndm e nt m

ust be re ve rse d. The distric t c o urt c orre c tly

re c ogniz e d tha

t the c om pla i nt, a s of the tim e of re m ova l, c o ve re d a ll C a lifornia m e rc ha nts, a nd not just m e rc ha

nts who we re C a lifornia

c itiz e ns. Tha

t c om pla int re m a i ne d the only one whic h should ha

ve be e n c onside re d for de te rm i ning the e xiste nc e of m inim a l dive rsity . Ac c ordingly , we re spe c t rathe r tha n ove rrule B e nk

o . W e re we to inte rpre t it a s broa dly

a s the disse nt, we would not only disa gre e with othe r c irc uits, but overrule our own pre c e de nt in Doy le . Our de c ision in Be nk o did not sa nc tion post-re m ova l a

m e ndm e nts tha

t c ha nge the nature of the c la im s or the m ake up of the c la ss. 11W e the re fore RE V E R SE the orde r of the distric t c ourt re m anding this c a se

to sta te c ourt, a nd RE M A ND for furthe r proc e e dings.

12B roadw a

y Grill, Inc

. v . V isa, Inc ., Case No. 17-15499 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. I a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t the am e ndm e nt of the C om pla int in this c a se fit within the pa ram e te rs re c e ntly

artic ulate d by

us in Be nk o v . Quality

Loan Se rv . C

orp ., 789 F.3d 1111 (9th C i r. 2015). The thrust of B roa dwa

y Grill’ s C om

pla int, be fore and a fte r am e ndm e nt, wa s that the Visa de fe nda

nts e n g a ge d in a

ntic om pe titivebe havior in se tting therate s for inte rc h an ge fe e s c ha

rge d to m e rc ha

nts in viola

tion of C aliforniaantitrust a

n d unfa ir c om

pe tition la

w s . B roa dwa

y Grill a lle ge d tha

t it wa s a C

alifornia c orporation, tha

t its a c t ion wa s pre m ise d s ole ly on viola tions of C alifornia law

and that B roa dwa y Grill c onduc te d busine ss only in Sa n M at e o C ounty , C

alifornia . B roa dwa y Grill de sc ribe d the c la ss a s c onsisting sole ly of C aliforniam e rc ha

nts, and note d tha t the Visa de fe nda nts we re he a dqua

rte re d in C

alifornia . B roa dwa

y Grill a ve rre d tha

t Visa ’ s unla

wful a c t ivitie s “ oc c urre d in a nd ha ve substa ntia lly a ffe c te d C

aliforniac om

m e rc e .” Fina lly , B roa dwa

y Grill de fine d the c la ss a s “ [a ] ll C alifornia individuals, busine sse s a

nd othe r e ntitie s who a c c e pte d Visa -B ra nde d C ards in C

alifornia .” No c a use of a c tion wa s ple d unde r any fe de ra l la w. Of c o urse , be c a

use B roa dwa

y Grill originally

file d its a c t ion in sta

te c ourt, 

# F IL ED MAY18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1the c itiz e nship of thepa rtie s wa s irre le va

nt. Howe ve r, onc e the c a se wa s re m ove d to fe de ra l c ourt, a

n issue arose re ga

rding whe t

he r the c la ss inc lude d only C a lifornia c itiz e ns. The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t be c a use the la ngua ge in the C o m

pla int de fining thec la ss wa s im

pre c ise , it c ould be fa irly

re a d to inc lude “ non-C a l ifornia c itiz e ns.” Spe c i fic a lly , the c ourt e xpla ine d tha t the C o m pla int fa i le d to “ e xplic itly lim it the c la ss’ s sc ope b a se d on sta te c itiz e nship.” Howe ve r, the c o urt subse q ue ntly a l l owe d

B roa d way Grill to a m e nd the C o m

pla int to c la

rify the c la ss of C a lifornia

c itiz e ns. The c ourt re lie d on our holding in Be nk o tha t “ [w] he re a de fe nda n t re m o ve s a

c a se to fe d e ra l c ourt unde r C AFA [the C l a ss Ac t ion Fa irne ss Ac t] , a nd the pla intiffs a

m e nd the c om

pla int to e xpla in the nature of the a c tion for purpose s of our jurisdic tiona l a na ly sis, we m ay c onside r the am e nde d c om pla int to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r re m and to thesta

te c ourt is a

ppropria t e . 789 F.3d a

t 1117. The distric t c ourt’ s re lia

n c e on this la

n gua g e from Be nk

o wa s e ntire ly warran te d. As thedistric t c ourt note d, B roa dwa y Grill a m e n de d the C o m

pla int “ to e xpla in the nature of the a c tion for purpose s of our jurisdic tiona l a na l y s is.” Id . Pre -am e ndm e nt, the C om pla int de fine d the c la ss a s “ All C a lifornia individuals, busine sse s a

nd othe r e ntitie s who a c c e pte d Visa -B ra nde d C ards.” Postam e ndm e nt, the C om

pla int de fine d the c la ss a s “ A ll C a lifornia c itize ns who a re individuals, busine sse s an d othe r e ntitie s who a c c e pte d Visa -B ra nde d C ards.” The 2am e ndm e nt in no wa y c h ange d the nature of the a c tion a ga inst theVisa de fe nda nts. Pre -am e ndm e nt a

nd post-a m e ndm e nt, the C o m

p la int a sse rte d the e x a c t sa m e c la im a ga inst theVisa

de fe nda n ts: e n ga ging in a

ntic om pe titivebe havior through se tting the i nte rc ha

nge fe e s c ha

rge d to C a lifornia

m e rc ha nts. The am e ndm e nt wa s e ntire ly c onsiste n t with our holding in Be nk o tha t a pla i ntiff “ should bepe rm itte d to a m e nd a c om pla int a fte r re m o va l to c la rify issue s pe rta ining to fe de ra l jurisdic tion unde r C AFA.” Id . In Be nk o , we e xpre s sly

a c knowle dge d tha

t ple a dings originally

file d in sta te c ourt ne e d not, a

nd ofte n do not, “ a ddre ss C AFA-spe c i fic issue s,” suc h a s dive rsity of c itiz e nship. Id . “ B y

am e nding the ir c om

pla int in the se c irc um s ta

nc e s, pla intiffs c an provide a

fe de ra l c o urt with theinform ation re quire d to de te rm ine whe t he r a suit is within the

c ourt’ s jurisdic tion unde r C AFA.” Id . M y c olle a gue s in them a

jority c onc lude that the am e ndm e n t wa s ina p propria te be c a use it “ c ha

nge d the de finition of the c l a ss.” Majority

Opinion , p. 7. B ut tha

t is e xa c t ly

the ty pe of c ha nge c ounte n anc e d in Be nk o – “ inform ation re quire d to de te rm ine whe the r a suit is within the

c o urt’ s jurisdic tion unde r C AFA.” 789 F.3d a

t 1117. Them a

jority a lso m ista

ke nly m a i nta ins tha

t the am e ndm e nt “ c ha

nge d the nature of the a c tion.” Majority Opinion , p. 8. Howe ve r, a s note d a bove , the nature of the a c tion re m a ine d one of a lle ge d a ntic om p e titive 3be havior in viola tion of C a lifornia

sta tute s . The de s c ription of the c la ss wa s de fine d m ore pre c ise l y without in a ny wa y e xpa nding or m odify ing the a lle gations unde rly ing the a s se rte d c a u se of a c tion. Our a

na ly sis in Be nk

o a pprove s of just suc h an am e ndm e n t , tha

t c la rifie s jurisdic tiona l fa c ts without alte ring the nature of the a c tion. Se e Be nk

o , 789 F.3d a

t 1117. Unlike m y c olle a gue s in them a

jority , I am not pe rsua de d by the c a se s from our siste r c irc uits. There a son is sim ple . All of the s e c a se s we re de c i de d on the pre m ise tha

t post-re m ova l a

m e n dm e nt to ple a dings is prohibite d. R at he r, in the se c a se s, jurisdic tion unde r C AFA is “ de t e rm ine d a s of the date of the ple a ding giving fe de ra l jurisdic tion.” H

arge tt v . Re v C

laims, LLC, Nos. 17-1339, 1340, 2017 W L 1405034 a

t *3 (8th C ir. April 14, 2017); se e also In Touc h C o nc e pts, Inc . v . C

e llc o P’ship , 788 F.3d 98, 102 (2d C ir. 2015) (sa m e ); C e dar Lodge

Plantation, L.L.C

. v . C SHV Fairw ay

Vie w I, L.L.C ., 768 F.3d 425, 429 (5th C ir. 2014) (sa m e ); In re Burlington N

. Santa Fe

Ry . C o ., 606 F.3d 379, 381 (7th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (noting tha

t “ nothing file d a fte r a

notic e of re m o va l a ffe c ts jurisdic tion” ). In Be nk o , we e xpre ssly

an d de finitive ly

disa vowe d re lia

nc e on this pre m ise . W e e xpla ine d tha

t the de fe nda

nts urge d us to c onc lude that “ jurisdic tion m

ust be ana ly z e d on the ba sis of theple a dings file d at the tim e of re m o va l without re fe re n c e to subse que nt a m e ndm e n ts.” Be nk

o , 789 F.3d a

t 1117 (c ita

tion omitte d). 4W e re

je c t e d tha t a rgum e nt a nd a llowe d

am e ndm e nt to c la

rify jurisdic t iona l issue s. Se e id . B e nk

o c om p e ls our a d

h e re nc e to its holding ra

the r tha n to thec ontra

ry a pproa c h of othe r c irc uits. Se e Hart v . Massanari , 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ B inding a

uthority m

ust be followe d . . .” ). B y following the

re a soning of out-of-c irc u it a

uthority tha t c o nflic ts with binding pre c e de nt in this c irc u it, the m a jority e sse ntia lly

e nga ge d in a

ste a lth re ve rsa l of Be nk

o , som e t hing a thre e -judge pa ne l m ay not le g itim ate ly

do. Se e Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th C ir. 2003). B e c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s ruling fits squa re l y within our de c i sion in Be nk o , I would a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision a llowing a m e ndm e nt of the C om

pla int.

5