## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 8023 I N RE : B URLI NGT ON N OR T HE R N S ANT A F E R AILW AY C OMPAN Y, B URLI NGT ON N OR T HE R N S ANT A F E C OR PO RA T I ON, W I L L I A M B ARBE E , an d F RAN CIS W EBE R, P etitio ners.

Pe tition fo r Le av e toA pp eal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- cv-469

— Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED J AN UA RY 22, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 19, 2010

Befo re K ANN E , W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . The defendants r em ove d thi s cl ass act i on sui t t o f edera l co urt u n der the Cl ass A cti on F ai rnes s A c t (“ C A FA ”), b u t w h en th e p lain tiffs am en d ed th eir com p lai nt to om it the class all egation s, th e d istri ct cou rt f ound j uri sdictio n lac ki ng and r em anded the case to sta te c o ur t
. T he de fe nd a nt s p e t i t i o ne d fo r l e a v e t o a pp e al th e o r d e r o fr e ma n d u nd e r 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 5 3 ( c )
. We accept the a pp ealand re ver se. This case beg an wh en A l l en M oo re and o therr esi dents o f Bagl ey, W isc onsi n, act i ng as r epres entat i ves ofa cl ass2 N o. 09

- 8023 of loc al p ro p er ty ow n er s, filed a c om p lain t in W isc on sin s t a t e c o ur ta g a i ns tBu r l i ng t o n No r the r n S a nt a F e R a i l w ay Company, Bur l i ng to n Nor th ern S an ta F e Cor po r at i o n, and som e o fi ts em plo yee s ( col l ectiv ely, “BN SF ”)
. They al l eg ed th at B N S F ’ s f ai l ur e to i ns pec t an d m aint ain a ra i l ro ad tr estle c au sed the town to fl oo d i n J uly20 07, d am ag in g t h eir p ro p er ty
. BN S F r em oved the c as e to fede r alc o ur t, wher e th e parti es batt l ed extens i vel y o verj uri sdic tio n. BN SF fi rs t ass er ted thatther e was d i ver si ty j uri sdic ti on, argui ng tha t the o nl y no n-di ver se defe nd ants, two em p l oye es f ro m W iscons in, w e re j oined frau d ulen tly. Th e d istri ct cou rt f o und the j o i nde r t ac ti ca l r athe r tha n fr au dul en t, b ut i t ac ce pte d BNSF ’ s se co nd g r o und f o r j ur i sdi ct i o n: the Clas s Acti on F ai rnes s Act, wh i ch pro vi des federa l j u ris d ict ion ov er c er ta in c las s ac tio n law su its
. See 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 332( d)( 2) , (d)( 5)
. T he p l ai nti ff s m ove d to re m and. A fter the di strict cour t deni ed that m oti on, theyi nstea d aske d f orlea ve to am end thei r com pla i nt to o m i t the cl ass al l ega ti ons. The dist ri ct cour t al l owed the am en dm ent, no ting tha t i t woul d s tr ea m l i ne the l i ti g at i o n. The cour t a l so co n strued the pla i nti ff s’ m oti on a s a n i m pli ed m oti on t o re m and the ca se, w h ich i t g ra nted. The di str i ct cour t e xplai ned that i ts j uri sd ict i onalanal ysi s no w was base d on the am ended com pla i nt, and that since the new c om p lain t d id n otco n ta in cla ss alleg a tio n s, it d id n otp ro vid e jur isd ict ion u n d er C A FA
. BN S F fi l ed a ti m el y m otion to r ec o ns i der
. Be f o r e th e distri ct c ourtr ule d on thatm oti on, but w i thi n 30 days ofthe or i gi nal rem and or der, B N SF als o fi l ed thi s peti ti on unde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 45 3( c) r equesting l ea ve t o a ppea l theN o. 09

- 8023 3 dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rdero fr em and. W h il e the peti ti on was pend i ng, the distric t co urt gr anted the m oti on t o re consi der but rei ter ate d i ts deci si on t o re m and the ca se to st at e c ou rt . Th is c ou rtth en tre at ed B N SF ’s in itia lly p re m at u re p et itio n as tim ely filed , pe rm itt in g B N SF to file a s up ple m ent a dd re ssi ng the di stric t co urt’ s o rdero n re c on sid er at ion an d as kin g M oo re to res p on d
. O n recon side rati on, the d istri ct cou rt noted that there are ex c ep tio n s t o t h e g en er al r u l e t h at rem ov al jur isd ict ion is det er m i ne d a t th e ti m e o fr emov al
. I t tr ea te d the amendmento fthe co m pl aintt o e l i m i na te c l as s al l eg at i o ns as a na l ogou s to the de ni alo fc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n a nd exp l ai ned that dist ri ct c ourt s were divi ded o n w hether th e den ial ofc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n a ffec ts CAFA j ur i sdi ct i o n. Com pare, e . g. , Gen e nb ac he r v. Cen t uryTel Fi b e rCo. II , LL C, 50 0 F
. S upp. 2 d 1 01 4, 1 01 6 ( C. D. I l l
. 2 00 7) ( r ea soning th atthe denia l o fcl ass cer ti fi cati on does notdestr oy CA FA j ur i sdi ct i o n b ec au se j uri sdi ct i o n c o nt i nue s ev eni fthe p arties can not prov e the j urisd ictional f acts all eged ), with M ue hl b aue rv. Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , N o . 0 5 C 2 6 7 6 , 2 0 0 9 WL 8745 11 , a t * 9- 10 ( N
. D. I l l
. M ar . 31 , 20 09 ) ( r ea so ni ng th atthe de ni a l o fc l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n de s t r o y s j ur i s di c t i o n b e c a use it m ean s t h e c a se is not and nev er w as a class action ). G ive n th is d isa gr ee m en t, th e c o u rtco n c lu d ed th at it did noter r i n re m anding the c ase . I n i ts peti ti on an d supp l em ent, BN SF i denti fi es thre e al ter nati ve gr ounds f orfed er alj uri sdic ti on, but w e nee d reach only one: j urisd iction un d er CA FA i s secu re e v e n t h ou gh , afte r re m ov al, th e p lain tiffs am en d ed th eir c om p lain t t o e lim in at e t h e c las s a lleg at ion s. T h e w ellest abl i shed ge nera l r ule i s th at j uri sdic ti on i s dete rm i ned4 N o. 09

- 8023 at the t i m e o fr em ova l, and n ot h in g fi l ed afterr em ova l aff ects j uri sdic ti on . S t. P a ul M ercury Ind em nity C o . v. Red Cab Co. , 303 U .S. 28 3, 29 3 (1 93 8); In re S h el l O il, 97 0 F
. 2d 355, 35 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( per curi am ); s e e also B ulla rd v. Bur l i ngt on N or t he r n S ant eFeRy. Co. , 535 F. 3d 759, 762 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o t i n g, i n a c a s e r e mo v e d u n d e r C AF A, that “w e doubt that anythi ng fi l ed aftera noti ce o fr em ova l can aff ect f edera l j uri sdic ti on”)
. CA FA i s, atbas e, an exte nsi on o fdi ver si ty j uri sdic ti on. Even i n case s fi l ed or i gi nal l y in federa l co urt, l ate r changes that co m prom i se d ive rs ity d o n otd es tr oy j u ris d ict ion
. Fre epor t

-M cM oRan, Inc. v. K NEn ergy, Inc. , 49 8 U .S. 426, 42 8 ( 1991 ) ( per cu riam ); s e eal s o 1 3 E C HARLES A LA N W R I GHT, A RTHU R R. M IL LER, & E DWARD H. C OO PER, F EDERAL P RACT I CE & P ROCEDURE § 36 08 , at 36 4-6 7 (3 d ed . 200 9). A n d th ou gh it i s s om eti m es possibl e f ora pla i nti ffwh o sues i n fede ra l co ur t to a m en d a w ayj ur i sdi ct i o n, r emov alc as es pr es en t concerns abo ut f oru m m ani pu l ati on that co unsel ag ai nst al l owing a pl ai nti ff’s post- re m ova l am endm ents to affect j ur i sdi ct i o n. See R o ck w ell Int’l C o rp. v. U nited Sta tes, 549 U
. S. 45 7, 47 3-7 4 & n .6 (20 07 ). T h is c ou rtrec en tly c on c lu d ed th at th e gen er al ru le

— that nothi ng fi l ed af ter a noti ce ofre mov a l a ff ects j uri sdic ti on

— g o ve r ne d a s i m i l ars i tu at i o n i n Cunni ngh am C harte r C orp. v. Le arje t, Inc. , 592 F.3d 805 ( 7th Cir. 2010). T h e r e we h e l d th a ti n a c as e r emov e d u n d e r C AF A, j uri sdic ti on s urvi ves eve n i fthe dist ri ct c ou rtdeni es c las s c er tific at ion
. Id. at80 6-0 7; see also U nited Steel, P a per & Fo r e s t ry, Rub b e r, M f g. , Ene rgy, Al l i e d Indu s . & Se r v. Worke rs Int ’ l U ni on, AFL- CIO, CLC v . S h e l l Oi l Co. , __F. 3d __, N o. 1 0- 55 26 9, 2 01 0 W L 1 57 11 90 , a t * 3- 4 ( 9th Ci r . Apr.N o. 09

- 8023 5 21, 20 10) ( f ol l owing Cunni ngh am )
. W e r eas oned thatCA FA j uri sdic ti on a tta ches w hen a case i s filed a s a c l as s ac ti o n, see 28 U
. S. C. § 1332( d)( 1) ( b) , and that ev en i fthe cl ass i s no t c er tifie d , j u ris d ict ion co n tin u es . Cunni ngham , 59 2 F
. 3d at 80 6

- 0 7
. We fu r th e r e x p l a i n e d th a t th e p o l i c i e s b e h i n d t he g en er alr ul e s up p or t th i s r es ul t, no tingtha t k ee pi ngthe ca se m i ni m i ze s th e ex pen se an d del ayc au se d b y s hut tl i ng a ca se f ro m court to cour t and furthers C A FA ’ s p urpose o f al l owing pu tat i ve cl ass acti ons to be l i ti gat ed in fed eral c ou rt
. Id. at 807. Gi ve n o urde ci si o n i n Cunni ngh am , the l i m i ted questi on thi s a pp ealpre sents i s whether CA FA j uri sdic ti on al so continues wh en the p ost
- re m ova l change i s no t the di str i ct cour t’ s deni alo fcl ass cer ti fi cati on but i s ins tead th e pl aint i ff s’ dec i si o n no t to pur su e cl as s cer ti fi ca ti o n. The dis tr i ct c ourttr eated the two si tuati ons as i ndi st i ng ui sh ab l e, a nd we ag re e. The r e ar e co m pel l i ng r ea so ns t o c o nc l ude tha t su cha po st
- r emov ala m en dm en t a l s o d o e s n o td e s t r o y CAF A j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h e s a me c on sid er at ion s o f ex p en se an d d ela y a p p ly, an d in a ddi t i o n, a l l o wi ngp l a i nt i ff s t o a men d a wa y CA FA j ur i sdi ct i o n a fte r r emov alwoul d pr es en t a si g ni fi ca nt risk offo r u m m an ipu lation. CA FA ’s l egislati ve h istory r efl ec ts a n a war en es s o fthe l at ter co nc ern, c i tingthe exi sti ng r ule that“j uri sdic ti on ca nnot be ‘ ouste d’ by l at ere ve nt s, ” an d e xpl aini ngtha t i fthe r ul e w ere otherwise , “pl ai nti ff s who bel i eve d the t i de w as tu rn in g a ga in st th em co u ld sim p l y a lw ay s a m en d th eir com pla i nt m onths (or e ven y ear s) i nto the l i ti gat i on t o re quir e r em and to sta te cour t. ” See S
. R ep . N o. 10 9- 14, at 70 -71 (20 05 ), r epr i nt e d i n 2 0 0 5 U. S
. C
. C
. A. N. 3 , 6 6
. As we6 N o. 09

- 8023

no te d i n Cunni ngh am , a case “s h ou l d not be shunted b et w ee n co u rtsy st em s.” 59 2 F .3d at80 7. A ccor dingl y, we V ACATE the di st r i ctc o urt ’ s r emand o r de r a nd R EMA ND to the dis tr i ct c ourtf orfurther proce edi ngs.

5- 19- 10