United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-8009

___________________________

James Pudlowski; Louis C. Cross, III; Gail Henry; Steven Henry, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents

v.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC; The St. Louis Rams Partnership; ITB Football

Company, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: June 1, 2016

 Filed: July 19, 2016

[Published] 

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC and other associated entities (collectively "Rams")

appeal the district court's decision to remand this case to the Missouri state court. We
vacate the district court's order and remand to the district court for further

proceedings.

The class of plaintiffs sued the Rams in the Twenty-Second Circuit Court in

the city of St. Louis for violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The

alleged violations arise out of the Rams' relocation of their professional football team

to Los Angeles, California. The Rams filed a notice of removal, seeking a federal

forum based on the jurisdiction that federal courts have pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act (CAFA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Once before the federal district court,

the plaintiffs moved the court to remand the case to the state court based

predominantly on a lack ofminimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Rams submitted two postremoval affidavits to

demonstrate diversity. In ruling on the motion to remand, the district court expressly

declined to consider the affidavits because theywere not included as part ofthe Rams'

notice of removal. 

On appeal, the Rams argue that the district court erred when it refused to

consider the affidavits simply because they were not included as part of the notice of

removal. The plaintiffs concede that the district court should have considered the

affidavits but nonetheless argue that another appropriate and sufficient reason

justified remand. 

The Rams properly removed the case to federal court by filing a notice of

removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." See 28

U.S.C. § 1446(a). Addressing the amount-in-controversy requirement, the Supreme

Court recently clarified that "a defendant's notice of removal need include only a

plausible allegation" that the jurisdictional requirements are met. Dart Cherokee

Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). A defendant is not

required to submit evidence establishing federal-court jurisdiction with its notice of

-2-
removal unless the plaintiff or the court questions the defendant's claim of

jurisdiction. Id.

The district court interpreted the rule that a federal court's jurisdiction is

measured "at the time of removal," Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817,

822 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted), to preclude it from considering evidence

submitted to the court postremoval. The district court's refusal to consider

postremoval evidence effectively denied the Rams the opportunity for jurisdictional

discovery to establish their claim of federal jurisdiction. We review such a denial for

an abuse of discretion. Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 588 (8th Cir. 2008). 

While it is true that jurisdiction is measured at the time of removal, that only

means that facts arising subsequent to removal have no bearing on a court's

jurisdictional determination. See Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d

783, 789 (8th Cir. 2012). Discovery is not limited to the merits of a case; "where

issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue, discovery is available to ascertain the facts

bearing on such issues." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13

(1978) (citation omitted). This makes good sense given that jurisdiction is (1)

important, (2) often fact-intensive, and (3) only required to be alleged plausibly in a

notice of removal. A court has an independent obligation to ensure that the case is

properly before it. Discovery is often necessary because jurisdictional requirements

rest on facts that can be disputed, for instance, the domicile of the parties. Here, the

district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the affidavitssimply on the

ground that the Rams submitted the affidavits postremoval. The Rams notice of

removal did not need to be accompanied by a submission of evidence. The district

court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence prejudiced the Rams by limiting their

ability to prove their statutory right to a federal forum. 

-3-
We vacate the district court's order remanding the case to the Missouri state

court and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with

our ruling.

______________________________

-4-