# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 80 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ja m es Pu dl ows ki ; Lo ui s C . Cro ss , III; Gail Henr y ; St ev en Henr y , on be ha lf o f

th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt s

v.

The St. Lo ui s R am s, LLC; The St . Lou is Ram s Pa rtn ers hi p; ITB Fo ot ba ll Co m pa ny, L LC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Ju ne 1, 2 01 6 Fil ed : J ul y

19 , 20 16 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

The St. Lo ui s R am s, LL C and ot he r as so ci at ed en ti ti es (co ll ect iv el y "Ra m s" )
ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to rem an d th is cas e to th e Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t. W eva cat e th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r an d rem an d to th e di st ric t c o u r t f o r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

.

The cl as s of pl ai nt iff

s s u ed th e Ram s in th e Twent y -Sec on d Ci rcu it Co ur t in th e ci ty of St

. Lou is fo r vi ol at in g th e Mi ss ou ri M e rch an di si ng Prac ti ces Act. The al le ge d vi ol at io ns ari se ou t of th e Ram s' rel oc at io n of th ei r pr of es si on al fo ot ba ll te am to Los Ang el es , Cal ifo rn ia

. The Ram s fil ed a no ti ce of rem ov al , se ek i n g a fed eral fo ru m ba se d on th e juri sd ic ti on th at fed eral co ur ts ha ve pu rs ua nt to th e Cl as s Acti on Fai rn es s Act (CAFA). Se e 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (d ). Onc e be fo re th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t, th e pl ai nt iff

s m ov ed th e co ur t to rema n d th e cas e to th e st at e co ur t ba se d
pr ed om inan tl y on a la ck of m in im al di ve rs it y ne ces sa ry to su pp or t CAFA juri sd ic tio n. S e e 2 8 U .S.C. § 13 32 (d )(2 ). The Ram s su bm it te d two po st rem ov al affi da vi ts t o de m on st rat e di ve rs it y

. In ru li ng on th e m ot io n to rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y de cl in ed to co ns id er th e affi da vi ts be cau se th ey were no t in cl ud ed as pa rt of th e Ram s'

no ti ce o f rem ov al

.

On ap pe al , th e Ram s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t e rred whe n it refu se d to

co ns id er th e affi da vi ts si m pl y be cau se th ey were no t in cl ud ed as pa rt of th e no ti ce of

rem ov al

. The pl ai nt iff

s co nc ed e th at th e d i s t r i ct co ur t sh ou ld ha ve co ns id ered th e affi da vi ts bu t no ne th el es s arg ue th at an ot he r ap pr op ria t e an d su ffi ci en t reas on jus ti fie d re m an d.

The Ram s pr op erl y rem ov ed th e cas e t o f e d e r a l co ur t by fil in g a no ti ce of

rem ov al "co nt ai ni ng a sh or t an d pl ai n st at em en t of th e gr ou nd s fo r rem ov al ." Se e 28 U.S.C. § 14 46 (a). Addr es si ng th e am ou nt -in -co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t, the Su pr em e Co ur t rec en tl y cl ari fie d th at "a de fen da nt 's no ti ce of rem ov al ne ed in cl ud e on ly a pl au s ib le al le ga ti on " th at th e juri sd ic ti on al req ui rem en ts are m et

. Dar t Ch er ok ee Bas in Ope ra ti ng Co

., LLC v. Owen s , 13 5 S. Ct

. 54 7, 55 4 (2 01 4)

. A de fen da nt is no t
req ui red to su bm it ev id en ce es ta bl is hi ng fed eral -co ur t juri sd ic ti on wit h it s no ti ce of

-2

-rem ov al un le ss th e p l a i n t i f f or th e co ur t qu es ti on s th e de fen da nt 's cl ai m of juri sd ic ti on

. Id

.

The di st ric t co ur t in te rp ret e d th e ru le th at a fed eral co ur t's juri sd ic ti on is

m eas ur ed "at th e ti m e of rem ov al ," Sc hu be rt v. Aut o Own er s In s. Co

. , 64 9 F.3 d 81 7, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) , to pr ecl ud e it fro m c o n si de rin g ev id en ce

su bm it te d to th e co ur t po st rem ov al

. The di st ric t co ur t's refu sa l to co ns id er po st rem ov al ev id en ce effe ct iv el y de ni ed th e Ram s th e op po rtu ni ty fo r juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery to es ta bl is h th ei r cl ai m of fed eral juri sd ic ti on

. W e rev ie w su ch a de ni al fo r

an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. St ei nb uc h v . Cut le r , 51 8 F .3d 58 0, 5 88 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

W hi le it is tru e th at juri sd ic ti on is m eas ur ed at t he ti m e o f rem ov al , t ha t on ly

m ean s th at fact s ari si ng su bs eq ue nt to rem ov al ha ve no be ari ng o n a co ur t's juri sd ic ti on al de te rm in at io n. Se e Har gi s v. Acces s Ca

pi ta l Fun di ng

, L LC , 6 74 F.3 d 78 3, 78 9 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 2 )

. D is co ve ry is no t li m it ed to th e m eri ts of a cas e; "wh ere is su es ari se as to juri sd ic ti on or ve nu e, di sc o v e r y i s av ai la bl e to as cert ai n th e fact s be ari ng on su ch is su es ." Opp en he imer Fun d, In c. v. Sa nd er s , 43 7 U.S. 34 0, 35 1 n.1 3 (1 97 8) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s mak es go od se ns e gi ve n th at juri sd ic ti on is (1 ) im po rta nt , (2 ) of

te n fact -in te ns iv e, an d (3 ) on ly req ui red to be al le ge d pl au si bl y in a

no ti ce of rem ov al

. A co ur t ha s an in de pe nd en t ob li ga ti on to en su re th at th e c a s e is
pr op erl y be fo re it

. Dis co ve ry is of te n ne ces sa ry be cau se juri sd ic ti on al req ui rem en ts

res t on fact s th at can be di sp ut ed , fo r in st an ce, the do m ic il e of th e pa rti es

. Here, the di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by refu si ng to co ns id er th e affi da vi ts si m pl y on th e gr ou nd t ha t th e Ram s su bm it te d th e affi da vi ts po st rem ov al

. The Ram s no ti ce of

rem ov al di d no t ne ed to be acco m pa ni ed by a su bm is si on o f ev id en ce. The di st ric t

co ur t' s re fusa l to co ns id er po st rem ov al ev id en ce pr ejud ic ed th e Ram s by li m it in g the ir ab il it y to pro ve th ei r st at ut or y

rig ht to a fed eral for um

.

-3

-We v a c a t e th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r rem an di ng th e cas e to th e Mi ss ou ri st at e

co ur t an d rem an d th is cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h

ou r ru li ng

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-