FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 5, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12430 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 2 9 2 7 - CV- DLG L E S L I E MI E D E MA i n d i v i d u al l y an d o n b eh al f o f al l o th ers s im ilia r ly s itu a te d , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A Y T A G C O R P O R A T I O N , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2006) B efo re C A R N E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: W e pr e vi ous l y a c c e pt e d D e fe nda nt - A ppe l l a ntM a y t a g C or por a t i on’ s pe t i t i on2

for per m i ss i on t o app ea l , pu rs uantt o t he C l as s A cti on F ai rnes s A ct(“ C A F A ”) , P ub . L . N o. 10 9-2, 11 9 S t at . 4 (20 05 ) ( codi fi ed i n sca t t er ed se cti on s of 28 U . S . C . ), f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng P l a i nti f f- A ppe l l e e L e s l i e M i e de m a ’ s m ot i on t o rem and for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi cti on . O n app ea l , M ay t ag cont ends that the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by pl a c i ng the bur de n of pr ovi ng s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on o n M a y ta g a n d r e s o lv in g a ll d o u b ts in fa v o ro f r e m a n d . M a y ta g f

u r th e ro bje c ts tha t , e ve n i f

i tdi d ha ve thi s bur de n, the di s tr i c tc our ta ppl i e d t oo hi gh a s t a nda r d of proo f w i th res pectt o C A F A ’ s a m ou nti n con trovers y r equi re m ent . F i nal l y, M ay t ag cl ai m s thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y r el i ed up on a post -r em ov al am ended c om pl a i nti n r e a c hi ng i t s de c i s i on. A f t e rc a r e f ul r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the b r ie fs , w e a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D In O ct ob erof 20 05 , L es l i e M i edem a f i l ed a c l as s a cti on sui tagai nstM ay t ag i n F l or i da s t a t e c our t , a l l e gi ng tha tva r i ous “ r a nge s / ove ns ” de s i gne d a nd m anufactured by M ay t ag cont ai ned a defec t i ve m ot ori ze d d oo r l at ch as se m bl y that al l o w ed h eatt o escap e an d d am ag e o th er ran g e/ o v en co m p o n en t s. S p eci fi cal l y, M i edem a pl ea ded t hatshe broug hther a cti on “ on behal f of her se l f a nd al l ot her s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d c ons um e r s of [ M a y t a g] r a nge s / ove ns tha ti nc or por a t e the d e fe c tiv e m o to r iz e d d o o rla tc h a s s e m b ly , a s a s ta te w id e c la s s a c tio n , p u r s u a n t to3

F la . R . C iv . P . 1 .2 2 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) o r( b ) ( 3 ) .” S h e in c lu d e d in th e p u ta tiv e c la s s “[ a ]ll pu rc hase rs of M ay t ag ra ng es / ov ens, i n t he S t at e of F l ori da, bear i ng [c er t ai n m od el num be r s ] , ” a nd s t a t e d he rbe l i e f tha tthe r e w e r e “ thous a nds of m e m be r s of

the abov e- desc ri bed cl as s. ” M i edem a a ss er t ed ca uses of ac t i on for negl i gence, brea ch of e xpr e s s w a r r a nt y , a nd vi ol a t i on of F l or i da ’ s D e c e pt i ve a nd U nfa i rT r a de P r a c t i c e s A c t , de m a ndi ng “ c om pe ns a t or y da m a ge s , [ ] pr e - a nd pos t -j udgm e nt in te r e s t, c o s ts , a n d a n y a n d a ll s u c h f u r th e rr e lie f

to w h ic h s h e is e n title d .” W i thi n a m onth of

be i ng s e r ve d w i th M i e de m a ’ s c om pl a i nt , M a y t a g f i l e d a not i c e of r e m ova l i n fe de r a l di s tr i c tc our t , i nvoki ng 28 U . S . C . §§ 1332, 1441, 14 46 , and 1 45 3. A cc ordi ng t o M ay t ag, the cl as s a cti on w as re m ov abl e und er C A F A be c a us e M i e de m a a nd M a y t a g w e r e of di ve r s e c i t i z e ns hi p, the put a t i ve cl ass co n si st ed o f th o u san d s o f F l o ri d i an s, an d th e am o u n ti n co n tro v ersy e x c e e d e d , in th e a g g r e g a te , $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 2 ( d ) , 1 4 5 3 ( a ) , ( b ) . I n s uppor tof

i t s c l a i m r e ga r di ng the a m ounti n c ontr ove r s y , M a y t a g s ubm i t t e d a decl ar ati on by i t s i nform ati on anal ys tJodi Ja rr ett . Ja rr ettdecl ar ed thatshe had r e s e a r c he d thos e r a nge / ove n m ode l s i de nt i f i e d i n M i e de m a ’ s de s c r i pt i on of the pu t ati ve cl as s, thata t ot al of 6, 72 9 ranges/ ov ens bea ri ng the al l eged m od el num be r s ha d be e n s ol d i n F l or i da , a nd tha tthe t ot a l va l ue of thos e r a nge s / ove ns w a s $ 5 ,9 3 1 ,9 7 1 .4

M i edem a r es po nd ed by m ov i ng t o rem and for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j uri sdi cti on . S he ar gu ed thatM ay t ag had t he bu rden of es t abl i shi ng subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , a n d th a t M a y ta g h a d fa ile d to ca rr y thatbu rden w i th res pectt o t he am ou nti n con trovers y. F or exam pl e, M i e de m a s t a t e d, J a r r e t t ’ s de c l a r a t i on di d nots pe c i f y w he the re a c h of

the 6, 729 ra ng es / ov ens s ol d i ncorpo ra t ed the al l egedl y def ec t i ve m ot ori ze d d oo r l at ch as se m bl y a ti ss ue, w hatM ay t ag m ea ntby “ t ot al val ue, ” or how that“ t ot al val ue” w as ca l cul at ed. M ay t ag op po se d t he m ot i on t o rem and, ar gu i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, thatany vagueness i n i t s det er m i nat i on of the am ou nti n con trovers y w as due t o the br e a dth of

M i e de m a ’ s c om pl a i nt . T he di s tr i c tc our t , not i ng the e xi s t e nc e of

di s a gr e e m e nta m ong c our t s a s t o w hi c h pa r t y be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on unde rC A F A , or de r e d a ddi t i ona l br i e f i ng on the i ss ue, as w el l as on w hether the re qu i si t e a m ou nti n con trovers y had been e s ta b lis h e d . M ie d e m a th e n p r o c e e d e d to d e p o s e J o d i J a r r e tt, a n d s u b m itte d th is depo si t i on as addi t i on al evi dence of M ay t ag’ s fai l ure t o est abl i sh thatm ore than $ 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 w as i n co n tro v ersy. A ft erre ce i vi ng the part i es ’ addi t i on al subm i ss i on s, the di stri ctcourti ss ued an order grant i ng M i edem a’ s m ot i on t o rem and for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erThe district court’s order also denied all other pendingmotions as moot and 1 administratively

closed the c ase. 5 j ur i s di c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta dhe r e d t o the tr a di t i ona l r ul e i n the C A F A c ont e xt

1 thata r em ov i ng defe nd antbear s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng subj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on. T he c our tthe n de t e r m i ne d tha tM a y t a g di d nots a t i s f y tha tbur de n, f in d in g th a t th e J a r r e tt d e c la r a tio n a n d d e p o s itio n w e r e “f la w e d ” in th is r e g a r d . A lth o u g h M ie d e m a a ls o c o n tr ib u te d to th e u n c e r ta in ty s u r r o u n d in g th e a m o u n t in c ontr ove r s y , the c our tnot e d, i tm us tul t i m a t e l y r e s ol ve a l l doubt s i n fa vorof r e m a nd. W e gr a nt e d M a y t a g’ s s ubs e que ntpe t i t i on forpe r m i s s i on t o a ppe a l the r e m a n d o r d e r , se e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) , a n d n o w r e a c h th e m e r its o f th a t a p p e a l. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o rem and for l ac k o f s ubj ec t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . E vans v. W al t erIndu s. , Inc. , 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 , _ _ F .3 d _ _ , s lip o p . a t 2 2 7 5 ( N o . 0 6 - 1 1 9 7 4 , M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) ; se e 28 U . S . C . § 1453( c ) ( 1) (not w i thst andi ng 28 U . S . C . § 1 44 7(d), courtof appeal s m ay re vi ew re m and o rder w here ca se w as re m ov ed un der C A F A ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . C A F A R evi ew of R em an d O rd er s 1 . 7 - D a y A p p lic a t io n R u le T h e C A F A p e r m its a c o u r t o f a p p e a ls to a c c e p t a n a p p lic a tio n to a p p e a l if6

th e ap p l i cat i o n i s m ad e t o th e co u rto f ap p eal s “ notl e s s than 7 da y s a f t e re ntr y of the [ di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ] or de r ” gr a nt i ng orde ny i ng a m ot i on t o r e m a nd a c l a s s a c t i on to th e s ta te c o u r t f

r o m w h ic h it w a s r e m o v e d . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a dde d) . S e ve r a l c i r c ui t s ha ve de c l i ne d t o r e a d the “ notl e s s tha n” l a ngua ge lite r a lly , c o n c lu d in g th a t it w a s a ty p o g r a p h ic a l e r r o r , o rth a t s u c h a r e a d in g w o u ld b e illo g ic a l. See P ri tchet tv. O f f i ce D epot, Inc. 42 0 F . 3d 10 90 , 10 93 n. 2 (10 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ T he st atut e s ho ul d rea d t hatan appeal i s per m i ss i bl e i f f i l ed ‘ no tm ore th a n ’ s e v e n d a y s a f

te re n tr y o f

th e r e m a n d o r d e r .” ) ; A m algam at e d Trans i tUni on L ocal13 09 , A FL -CIO v. L ai dl aw Transi tServ s. , Inc. , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2006) ( fol l ow i ng P r itc h e tt a nd a l s o e xc l udi ng, i n c a l c ul a t i ng the 7- da y pe r i od, in te r m e d ia te w e e k e n d s a n d h o lid a y s u n d e rF e d . R . A p p . P . 2 6 ( a ) ( 2 ) ) ; c f. P at t e rs on v . De a n M o r r i s , L. L. P. , 444 F . 3d 365, 368 n. 1 ( 5th C i r . 2006) . W hi l e w e ha ve not a d d r e s s e d th is is s u e d ir e c tly , it is c le a rth a t w e d id n o t r e a d § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) lite r a lly in E v ans , w here w e s t at ed that§ 1 45 3(c) (1) “ prov i des for an ‘ appl i ca t i on ’ t o t he court o f a p p e a ls . . . w ith in 7 d ay s of the di stri ctcourt ’ s r em and o rder . ” E v ans , __ F . 3d a t__, s l i p op. a t2275 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . W e now r e a f f i r m tha tc ons tr uc t i on of § 1453( c ) ( 1) , fort o r e a d i tl i t e r a l l y w oul d pr oduc e a n a bs ur d r e s ul t : the r e w oul d be a f ront -e nd w ai t i ng peri od (a n app l i ca t i on fi l ed 6 d ay s a ft erentry of a r em and o rder w ou l d b e pre m ature) , bu tthere w ou l d b e no b ac k-end l i m i t(a n app l i ca t i on fi l edIf a f inal judgment on the appeal is not i ssued bef ore theend of the60-day

period, plus 2 any e xten sio n o f that peri odun der § 14 53 (c )( 3) , th e n “ theapp e al sh all b edenie d. ” 28 U. S.C. § 1453(c) (4). 7 600 da y s a f

t e re ntr y of

a r e m a nd or de rw oul d notbe unt i m e l y ) . W he n a ppl y i ng the p l ai n an d o rd i n ary m ean i n g o f st atu t o ry l an g u ag e “ p ro d u ces a resu l tth ati s n o tj u st un w i se bu ti s c l ea rl y absurd, anot her pri nci pl e c om es i nt o t he pi cture. T hat p r in c ip le is th e v e n e r a b le o n e th a t s ta tu to r y la n g u a g e s h o u ld n o t b e a p p lie d lite r a lly i f doi ng so w ou l d p rodu ce an absurd res ul t . ” M e r r i t tv . D i l l ard P ape rC o. , 120 F . 3d 11 81 , 11 88 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ). H er e, the di stri ctcourt ’ s r em and o rderw as e n te r e d o n A p r il 4 , 2 0 0 6 . M a y ta g f ile d its p e titio n fo rp e r m is s io n to a p p e a l ( i.e ., its

“ a ppl i c a t i on” ) w i th the c i r c ui tc l e r k on A pr i l 12, 2006–s i x da y s l a t e r , w he n the i n t erv en i n g w eek en d i s ex cl u d ed u n d er F ed . R . A p p . P . 2 6 (a)(2 ). A cco rd i n g l y, th e r e w a s n o v io la tio n o f § 1 4 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) w h e n w e g r a n te d M a y ta g ’s p e titio n . 2 . 6 0 - D a y R e v ie w L im it T he C A F A r e qui r e s us t o “ c om pl e t e a l l a c t i on on [ thi s ] a ppe a l , i nc l udi ng re nd er i ng j ud gm ent , no tl at erthan 6 0 d ay s a ft erthe dat e on w hi ch such appeal w as f i l e d, unl e s s a n e xt e ns i on i s gr a nt e d . . . . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1453( c ) ( 2) . I n gr a nt i ng 2 M a y t a g’ s pe t i t i on forpe r m i s s i on t o a ppe a l , w e di r e c t e d the pa r t i e s t o a ddr e s s the q u e s tio n o f

“w h e th e rth e s ix ty - d a y p e r io d is m e a s u r e d f r o m th e d a te th e p e titio n is fi l ed, or i nst ea d i s m ea sure d from the dat e of e ntry of thi s order . ” E v ans , ho w ever ,The one -year limit ation in § 1446(b), however, doe s not apply . 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). 3 8 ha s now de c i de d tha ti s s ue , hol di ng tha t“ the 60- da y pe r i od be gi ns t o r un f r om the da t e w he n the c our tof

a ppe a l s gr a nt e d the a ppe l l a nt s ’ a ppl i c a t i on t o a ppe a l a nd th u s f il ed th e a p p ea l. ” _

_ F .3 d at _

_ , sli p o p . at 2 2 7 5 . W e g ra n ted M ay tag ’s pe t i t i on forpe r m i s s i on t o a ppe a l on A pr i l 25, 2006. T hus , s o l ong a s ourr ul i ng on thi s a pp ea l i s i ss ued w i thi n 6 0 d ay s of thatdat e ( as sum i ng no ext ensi on i s gra nt ed), o u r ru l i n g i s t i m el y. B . B u r d e n of

E s t ab l i s h i n g S u bj e c tM at t e r Ju r i s d i c t i on T he C A F A a uthor i z e s r e m ova l of a “ c l a s s a c t i on” i n a c c or da nc e w i th 28 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 6 , “w ith o u t r e g a r d to w h e th e ra n y d e fe n d a n t is a c itiz e n o f th e S ta te 3 i n w hi c h the a c t i on i s br ought , e xc e pttha ts uc h a c t i on m a y be r e m ove d by a ny d efen d an tw i th o u tth e co n sen to f al l d efen d an t s. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 4 5 3 (b ). A “ cl ass a c tio n ” in c lu d e s a c iv il a c tio n w h ic h , lik e M ie d e m a ’s , is f ile d u n d e ra “S ta te . . . rul e of j ud i ci al procedure autho ri zi ng an ac t i on t o b e broug htby 1 o r m ore re pres ent ati ve pers on s a s acl as s a cti on . ” I d. § 1 33 2(d)(1). “ U nd erC A F A , fe dera l c o u r ts [ ] h a v e o r ig in a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rc la s s a c tio n s in w h ic h th e a m o u n t in c ontr ove r s y e xc e e ds $5, 000, 000 a nd the r e i s m i ni m a l di ve r s i t y ( a tl e a s tone pl ai nt i ff and o ne defendantar e f rom di ff er entst at es ). ” E v ans , _ _ F .3 d a t _

_ , s lipWhil e this grant of jurisdiction does not apply to a class action in which “the number of 4 members of

all proposed plaintiff c lasses in the ag greg ate is less than 100,” see 28 U. S.C. § 1332(d)( 5)(B ), thereis no claim that this languag e describes the instant ca se. Indeed, the complaint and notice of

removal both indicate that the putative c lass numbers in the thousands.

9 op . at22 76 (c i t i ng 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2(d)(2)). 4 M a y ta g c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in e v a lu a tin g M ie d e m a ’s m o tio n to re m and, erre d b y a pp l yi ng the tra di t i on al rul e thatthe re m ov i ng defe nd antbear s the bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on. M a y t a g c onc e de s “ [ t ] he t e xt of C A F A doe s nota ddr e s s w hi c h pa r t y ha s the bur de n of pr oof i n e s t a bl i s hi ng fe de r a l j ur i s di c t i on w he n a c l a s s a c t i on i s r e m ove d t o fe de r a l c our t , ” buta r gue s the l egi sl ati ve hi st ory e xp re ss es a c l ea r i nt entt o requi re thatan obj ec t i ng pl ai nt i ff dem on stra t e r em ov al w as i m prov i dent , i . e. , thatal l appl i cabl e j uri sdi cti on al re qu i re m ent s w er e notm e t. S p e c if ic a lly , M a y ta g p o in ts to la n g u a g e in th e S e n a te C o m m itte e R e p o r t: If a purpo rt ed cl as s a cti on i s re m o v ed pu rs uantt o t hese j uri sdi cti on al pr ovi s i ons , the na m e d pl a i nt i f f( s ) s houl d be a rthe bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe r e m ova l w as i m p r ovi de nt( i . e . , tha tthe appl i cabl e j uri sdi cti on al re qu i re m ent s a re no tsa t i sf i ed). A nd i f a fe d e r a l c o u r t is u n c e r ta in a b o u t w h e th e r“a ll m a tte r s in c o n tr o v e r s y ” in a p u rp o rt e d c l a s s a c t i on “ do noti n the a ggr e ga t e e xc e e d the s um or va l ue of $5, 000, 000, ” th e co u rts houl d e r ri n fa vorof e xe r c i s i ng j uri sdi cti on ov erthe ca se . S . R e p . N o . 1 0 9 - 1 4 , a t 4 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a s r e p r in te din 2 0 0 5 U .S .C .C .A .N . 3 , 4 0 ; se e a l so 15 1 C on g. R ec . H 72 3, H 72 7 (20 05 ) ( st at em entof R ep. S ense nb re nn er ) ( “ If a10

pu rport ed cl as s a cti on i s r em ov ed un der these j uri sdi cti on al prov i si on s, the nam ed p la in tif f( s ) s h o u ld b e a rth e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t r e m o v a l w a s im p r o p e r . A n d if a fe d e r a l c o u r t is u n c e r ta in a b o u t w h e th e rth e $ 5 m illio n th r e s h o ld is sa t i sf i ed, the courtshou l d erri n favor of exerc i si ng j uri sdi cti on ov erthe ca se . ”) . T hus , M a y t a g c onc l ude s , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve pl a c e d the bur de n on M i e de m a t o pr ove tha ts ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on w a s l a c ki ng. W e d i sag ree. T h e S ev en th an d N i n th C i rcu i t s h av e, i n d et ai l ed o p i n i o n s, r e je c te d th e v e r y k in d o f

a r g u m e n t M a y ta g n o w p r e s e n ts . See B r i l lv . C ount r y w i de H om e L oa ns, Inc. , 42 7 F . 3d 44 6, 44 8 (7t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thatC A F A ’ s “ naked l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y ” doe s nota l t e rthe w e l l e s t a bl i s he d r ul e tha ta pr opone ntof s u bje c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n o n th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s y ) ; A br e go A br e go v . D ow C he m . C o. , 443 F . 3d 676, 686 ( 9th C i r . 2006) (percuri am ) ( “ C A F A ’ s s i l ence , coup l ed w i th a se nt ence i n a l egi sl ati ve com m i t t ee r e p o r t u n te th e r e d to a n y s ta tu to r y la n g u a g e , d o e s n o t a lte rth e lo n g s ta n d in g r u le tha tthe pa r t y s e e ki ng fe de r a l j ur i s di c t i on on r e m ova l be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng tha tj ur i s di c t i on. ” ) . I n E v ans – w h i ch w as d eci d ed aft er th e i n st an tcase w as ful l y bri ef

ed–t hi s C i rc ui tagre ed w i th t he S eventh and N i nt h C i rc ui t s that

“ C A F A do es no tup se tthe tra di t i on al rul e thatthe re m ov i ng party bea rs the bu rden o f p r o o f w ith r e g a r d to e s ta b lis h in g fe d e r a l c o u r t ju r is d ic tio n .” _ _ F .3 d a t _

_ , s lipMaytagc ite s Corning Glass W orks v. Bre nnan , 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S. C t. 2223, 5 2228, 41 L . Ed. 2d 1 (1974) ( “Although the [Equal Pay ] Act is si lent on this point , its legislative his tory make s p lain that th eSe c retary ha s th eburde n o f pro of

onthi s is su e , a s b othof

thec ourt s below re cog nized.”). Corning Glass W orks , however, does not ac tually stand for theproposition Maytagurg es–that leg islative history , coupled with statutory silence, is suff

icient to overridean already e xisting , w e ll- e sta

bli sh e d r uleallo c atin gtheburde n o f pro of to a remov ingde fend ant. 11 op . at22 78 . M oreover, thi s C i rc ui tprevi ou sl y e xp l ai ned t hat , “ ‘ [w ] hi l e a c o m m itte e r e p o r t m a y o r d in a r ily b e u s e d to in te r p r e t u n c le a rla n g u a g e c o n ta in e d in a s t a tut e , a c om m i t t e e r e por tc a nnots e r ve a s a n i nd ependentstat ut ory s ou rc e hav i ng the f

or c e of l aw . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. T hi gp en , 4 F . 3d 15 73 , 15 77 (11t h C i r. 1993) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng Int ’lB hd . of E l ec . Worke rs L ocalUni on No. 474 v. NLRB , 8 1 4 F .2 d 6 9 7 , 7 1 2 ( D .C . C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; c f. R u ra l E le c tr ific a tio n A dm in . v C e nt. L a. E l e c . C o. , 354 F . 2d 859, 865 ( 5th C i r . 1966) ( “ C e r t a i nl y , the de m a nds of C ongr e s s i ona l C om m i t t e e s do notha ve the for c e of l a w . ” ) . T hus , “ ‘ c our t s ha ve no a uthor i t y t o enf

orce pr i nc i pl e s gl e a ne d s o le ly f r om l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y tha tha s no st atut ory r ef

er ence po i nt . ’ ” T

hi gp en , 4 F . 3d a t1577 ( quot i ng Int ’lB hd . of E l ec . Wo rkers , 81 4 F . 2d at71 2). 5 F ors i m i l a rr e a s ons , w e a l s o r e j e c tM a y t a g’ s a r gum e nt , ba s e d on the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y de s c r i be d a bove , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve r e s ol ve d a ny d o u b ts a b o u t th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s y in fa v o ro f f in d in g ju r is d ic tio n . A s w ith the bur de n of

pr oof , C A F A i t s e l f

i s s i l e nton the m a t t e r . T he r ul e of c ons tr ui ng r e m o v a l s ta tu te s s tr ic tly a n d r e s o lv in g d o u b ts in fa v o ro f r e m a n d , h o w e v e r , is w e ll-In fac t, § 2(b) of CAFA describes its purposes as f ollows: (1) “[to] assurefair and 6 prompt rec overie s for c lass members with leg itimate claims; (2) “[to] restorethe intent of the framers of theUnited States Constitution by providingfor f

ederal court consideration of inters tatec a se s o f n atio nal impo rt anc eun der divers ity jurisdic tio n; and(3 ) “ [to] b e ne fi t so c iety 12 e s ta b lis h e d . Se e , e . g. , S h a m r o c kO il & G a s C o r p . v . S h e e ts , 313 U . S . 100, 108, 61 S . C t . 868, 872, 85 L . E d. 1214 ( 1941) ( “ [ T ] he pol i c y of the s uc c e s s i ve a c t s of C on gres s r egul ati ng the j uri sdi cti on of fe dera l court s i s one ca l l i ng for the stri ct c o n s tr u c tio n o f

[ r e m o v a l s ta tu te s ].” ) ; Sy nge nta C r op. P r ot. , I nc . v . H e ns on , 537 U . S . 28 , 32 , 12 3 S . C t . 36 6, 36 9, 15 4 L . E d. 2d 36 8 (20 02 ) ( “ [S ] t atut ory procedures fo rr e m o v a l a r e to b e s tr ic tly c o n s tr u e d .” ) ; B urns v . W i nds orI ns . C o. , 31 F . 3d 10 92 , 10 95 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( “ [R ] em ov al st atut es ar e c on strued narrow l y; w here pl a i nt i f f a nd de fe nda ntc l a s h a boutj ur i s di c t i on, unc e r t a i nt i e s a r e r e s ol ve d i n fa vor o f r e m a n d .” ) ; Uni v . of

S. A l a. v . A m . T

obac c o C o. , 16 8 F . 3d 40 5, 41 1 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “[ A ]ll d o u b ts a b o u t ju r is d ic tio n s h o u ld b e r e s o lv e d in fa v o ro f r e m a n d to st at e c ou rt . ”) . S t at em ent s i n C A F A ’ s l egi sl ati ve hi st ory, st andi ng al on e, ar e a in s u f f ic ie n t b a s is fo rd e p a r tin g f r o m th is w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d r u le . See T hi gp en , 4 F . 3d a t 1 5 7 7 ; c

f. A br e go , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 6 8 6 ; B r ill , 427 F . 3d a t448. M ay t ag cont ends thatadherence t o t hese w el l -e st abl i shed rul es runs contra ry t o “ on e of the ov erri di ng pu rposes ” of C A F A , w hi ch M ay t ag chara ct er i ze s a s

“ fi x[i ng ] the fl aw i n 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 33 2 and throw [i ng ] op en the do ors of the fe dera l j udi c i a r y t o de fe nda nt s w ho a r e s ue d i n s t a t e c our tc l a s s a c t i ons . ” W hi l e the t e xt 6by

encourag ing innovation and loweringconsumer prices.” 28 U.S.C. § 1711 note. “ Th eun animity

re qu ire ment m and ate s th at inc a se s invo lvi ngmultip lede fend ants , all 7 defendants must consent to removal.” Russell Corp. v. Am. HomeAssur. Co. , 264 F.3d 1040, 1 0 4 4(1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci ti n g Chi c ag o R . I . &P. Ry . Cov . M

artin , 1 78 U. S. 2 45 , 2 47 -4 8, 20S. Ct. 85 4, 85 5, 44L . E d. 10 55 (1 90 0) (deri vin gfrom a remov al st atutetheru lethat all de fend ants must joi n in removal)) . 13 o f C A F A p la in ly e x p a n d s fe d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rc la s s a c tio n s a n d fa c ilita te s th e ir r e m ova l , “ [ w ] e pr e s um e tha tC ongr e s s l e gi s l a t e s a ga i ns tthe ba c kdr op of e s ta b lis h e d p r in c ip le s o f s ta te a n d fe d e r a l c o m m o n la w , a n d th a t w h e n it w is h e s to devi at e f rom deepl y r oo t ed pri nci pl es , i tw i l l sa y s o. ” Un ite dS ta te s v . B a x te rI n t’ l, Inc. , 3 4 5 F .3 d 8 6 6 , 9 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e Whi t e v . M e r c ur y M ar i ne , D i v . of B runsw i ck, Inc. , 12 9 F . 3d 14 28 , 14 34 -35 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( “ C on gres s i s a ss um ed t o actw i th t he kn ow l edge of exi sti ng l aw and i nt erpret ati on s w hen i tpass es new le g is la tio n .” ) . F o re x a m p le , C o n g r e s s in s e r te d la n g u a g e in to C A F A th a t c le a r ly s us pe nds the w e l l - e s t a bl i s he d r ul e of una ni m i t y forpur pos e s of c l a s s a c t i on 7 r e m o v a ls . See 28 U . S . C . § 1453( b) ( s t a t i ng tha ta c l a s s a c t i on “ m a y be r e m ove d by any def endantw i tho utthe consentof al l defe nd ant s” ); A br e go A br e go , 44 3 F . 3d at 68 1 (no t i ng that§ 1 45 3 o verr i des the j ud i ci al l y devel op ed re qu i re m entthatea ch defe nd antconsentt o rem ov al ). L i kew i se , C on gres s e xp re ss l y i m po se d a spec i al

“ r ul e of c ons tr uc t i on” on C A F A ’ s pr ovi s i ons r e qui r i ng tha tc e r t a i n s t a t e a nd fe d e r a l o f

f ic ia ls b e n o tif

ie d o f p r o p o s e d c la s s a c tio n s e ttle m e n ts . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1715( f) ( “ N othi ng i n thi s s e c t i on s ha l l be c ons tr ue d t o e xpa nd the a uthor i t y of , orNotably , the standards urg ed by Maytagwould leavecourts with lingeringdoubts about 8 the exist enceof subject matter jurisdiction. The merefac t that a plaintiff failed to prove that subject matter jurisdiction did not exis t, for example, would not nece ssarily mean that subjec t matter jurisdiction did

ex i s t . As a res u l t , cl as s ac ti o n s co u l dco n ce i v ab l y p ro ce edthro u gh removal, an initial 28 U.S.C . § 1453(c) appeal, discovery , and per haps even summary

judgment or trial bef

ore it bec ame a

pparent that subject matter jurisdiction was in fact lacking . Such a result is difficult to rec oncile with CAFA ’s appa rent c oncern for the sw ift resolution of disputes over f ederal jurisdiction, as evidenc ed by the 7-day and 60-day

deadlines imposed by

§ 1453(c) . Cf. Brill , 427 F.3d at 447 (“[I ]tis not enoug h to file a pleading and leaveit to the court or the adver se party

to neg ate jurisdiction.”) . 14 im p o s e a n y o b lig a tio n s , d u tie s , o rr e s p o n s ib ilitie s u p o n , F e d e r a l o rS ta te offi ci al s. ”) . T hu s, M ay t ag’ s gener al i ze d app ea l s t o C A F A ’ s “ ov erri di ng pu rpose” ar e unavai l i ng i n t he fa ce of C A F A ’ s s i l ence on the tra di t i on al , w el l -e st abl i shed r u le s th a t g o v e r n th e p la c e m e n t o f th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f a n d th e r e s o lu tio n o f

d o u b ts i n fa vorof

r e m a nd. 8 F orthe for e goi ng r e a s ons , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r rby pl a c i ng the bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng s ubj e c tm a t t e rj ur i s di c t i on on M a y t a g, orby i nvoki ng the r ul e tha tdoubt s a r e t o be r e s ol ve d i n fa vorof r e m a nd. C . A m o u n t i n C o n tro v ersy 1. S t an d ar d of

P r oof M a y ta g c o n te n d s th a t, in o r d e rto s a tis f y its b u r d e n o f

p r o o f w ith r e s p e c t to the am ou nti n con trovers y ( m i ni m al di vers i t y i s noti n d i sput e) , the di stri ctcourt e r r one ous l y r e qui r e d i tt o “ pr ove w i th c e r t a i nt y ” the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) “ how m a ny of the ove ns l i s t e d i n [ M i e de m a ’ s ] c om pl a i ntw e r e a c tua l l y de fe c t i ve ” ; ( 2) “ the15

nu m ber of ovens l ocat ed i n F l ori da”; and (3) “ the pri ce thatea ch F l ori da cust om er p ai d fo r th ei r M ayt ag o v en . ” S u ch a h i g h st an d ard o f p ro o f, M ayt ag arg u es, e s s e n tia lly r e n d e r s it im p o s s ib le fo rm a n u fa c tu r e r s to m e e t C A F A ’s a m o u n t in controvers y r equi re m ent . T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , di d n otpu rportt o requi re tha tM a y t a g pr ove the r e qui s i t e a m ounti n c ontr ove r s y “ w i th c e r t a i nt y . ” T o the c ontr a r y , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y i nvoke d the r ul e tha t“ [ w ] he r e , a s he r e , the p l ai n t i ff h as n o tp l ed a sp eci fi c am o u n to f d am ag es, th e rem o v i n g d efen d an tm u st prov e by a prepon derance of the ev i dence tha tthe a m ounti n c ontr ove r s y e xc e e ds the j uri sdi cti on al re qu i re m ent . ” W i l l i am s v . B es tB uy C o. , Inc. , 269 F . 3d 1316, 1 3 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T o d e te r m in e w h e th e rth is s ta n d a r d is m et , a c ou rtfi rs texam i nes w hether “ i ti s fac i al l y a pp ar entfr om the com pl ai ntthat the am ou nti n con trovers y e xcee ds the j uri sdi cti on al re qu i re m ent . ” I d. A s the di stri ctcourtre cogn i ze d, i ti s notfa ci al l y a pp ar entfr om M i edem a’ s c om pl ai ntthat th e a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s y e x c e e d s $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . C f . i d. a t1 3 2 0 ( g e n e r a l i z e d c l a i ms fo r v ari o u s t yp es o f d am ag es d i d n o test ab l i sh “ th atth e am o u n ti n co n tro v ersy m or e l i ke l y tha n note xc e e ds $75, 000” ) . “ I f the j ur i s di c t i ona l a m ounti s not fa ci al l y a pp ar entfr om the com pl ai nt , the courtshou l d l oo k t o t he no t i ce of re m ov al an d m ay req u i re ev i d en ce rel ev an tt o th e am o u n ti n co n tro v ersy atth e t i m e th e case w as re m ov ed. ” I

d. a t1319. T he di s tr i c tc our tl i ke w i s e pe r for m e d thi s i nqui r y , a nd16

r e s ol ve d the m a t t e ri n fa vorof r e m a nd. T hus , M a y t a g’ s r e a l di s put e i s notw i th the

“ st andard of proo f” per s e, bu tthe di stri ctcourt ’ s a ss es sm entof the evi dence.

2. E vi d en ce In order t o est abl i sh the am ou nti n con trovers y, M ay t ag’ s not i ce of re m ov al r e l i e d upon J odi J a r r e t t ’ s de c l a r a t i on tha t“ a t ot a l of 6, 729 of the m ode l s of r a n g e s /o v e n s id e n tif

ie d in p a r a g r a p h 2 2 o f

th e C o m p la in t w e r e s o ld in F lo r id a ,” and “ [t ] he t ot al val ue of tho se ra ng es / ov ens i s $5, 93 1, 97 1. ” T he di stri ctcourt i d en t i fi ed sev eral p ro b l em s w i th th ese cl ai m s: P a r a g r a p h 2 1 o f

th e c o m p la in t m a k e s c le a rth a t P la in tif f is o n ly pu rs ui ng re l i ef

“ on behal f of her se l f a nd al l oth er si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed co n su m ers o f M ayt ag ran g es/ o v en s t h ati n c or p or at e t h e d e f e c t i ve m o t o r i ze d la t c h a s s e m b ly , a s a s ta te w id e c la s s a c tio n .” ( E m p h a s is added) . Contr a r y t o D e fe nd a nt ’ s c on t e nti on , Pl a i nti f f di d no t c l a i m t hat a l l of t h e r a nge s / ove n[ s ] of the m ode l s i de nt i f

i e d i n pa r a gr a ph 22 cont ai ned t he defec t . T he af fi davi tatt ac hed t o t he N ot i ce of R em ov al fa i l s t o con fi rm thatea ch of the 6, 72 9 u ni t s had the defec t i ve m ot ori ze d doorl a t c h a s s e m bl y . I ns t e a d, the a f f i da vi tonl y c l a i m s tha t“ 6, 729 of t h e m o d e l s of

r a nge s / ove ns i de nt i f

i e d i n pa r a gr a ph 22 of

the C om pl a i nt w e r e s ol d i n F l or i da . ” P a r a gr a ph 22 of the c om pl a i nti s a l i s t of the m o d e l n u m b e r s a t is s u e . F u r th e r , th e a f f id a v it fa ils to d e fi n e w h a t is m ean tb y th e “ t o t al v al u e” o f th o se ran g es/ o v en s. M ay t ag chal l enges thi s a nal ys i s, no t i ng thatpara graph 2 2 o f M i edem a’ s ori gi nal co m p lain t sim p ly id en ti fies th e p u tati v e c lass as “[ a ] llpu rc hase rs of M ay t ag r a n g e s /o v e n s , in th e S ta te o f F lo r id a ,” th a t b e a ra n y o f th e lis te d m o d e l n u m b e r s . ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . W he n c ons i de r e d i n c onj unc t i on w i th pa r a gr a ph 21 of the17

or i gi na l c om pl a i nt , M a y t a g a r gue s , pa r a gr a ph 22 n e c e s s a r ily im p lie s th a t every r a n g e /o v e n w h ic h b e a r s o n e o f th e lis te d m o d e l n u m b e r s a n d w a s p u r c h a s e d in F l ori da cont ai ns the m ot ori ze d l at ch as se m bl y a l l eged t o b e def ec t i ve. T he di stri ct court , M ay t ag sugg es t s, m usthave confused paragra ph 22 of M i edem a’ s ori gi nal com pl ai ntw i th p ar agra ph 22 of her post -r em ov al am ended com pl ai nt , w hi ch i d en t i fi es th e p u t at i v e cl ass as “ a llp u r c h a s e r s o f M a y ta g r a n g e s /o v e n s , in th e S ta te o f F lo r id a , w h ic h c o n ta in th e a lle g e d ly d e fe c tiv e m o to r iz e dd o o rla tc h a s s e m b ly ” an d b ear an y o f th e l i st ed m o d el n u m b ers. (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h i s n ew cl ass de f i ni t i on w oul d be t t e rs uppor tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s oni ng, butm a y notbe c o n s id e r e d fo rp u r p o s e s o f d e te r m in in g s u bje c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . Se e B urns , 31 F .3 d at 1 0 9 7 n .1 3 (“Ju risd icti o n al fa cts a re as se ss ed o n th e b as is o f p lain ti ff ’s c o m p la in t as of

the t i m e of

r e m ov al .” ) ; Wi l l i a ms , 26 9 F . 3d at13 19 (“ [A ] di stri ct c our tm a y pr ope r l y c ons i de rpos t - r e m ova l e vi de nc e i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe j ur i s di c t i ona l a m ountw a s s a t i s f i e d atthe t i m e of

r e m ov al . ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). W hi l e w e a r e notpe r s ua de d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d i n fa c tr e l y upon pa r a gr a ph 22 of

the pos t - r e m ova l a m e nde d c om pl a i nt , w e a gr e e tha t , unde rthe m os tl ogi c a l r e a di ng of

the or i gi na l c om pl a i nt , M i e de m a w a s a l l e gi ng tha ta l l of the l i st ed ra ng e/ ov en m od el s s ol d i n F l ori da cont ai ned t he al l eged defec t i ve m ot ori ze d l a t c h a s s e m bl y . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve fa ul t e d M a y t a g forTh edis tric t c ourt alsofo un d it

signif ic ant that Maytag ’s c alc ulatio n o f theamount i n 9 controversy

did not account f

or the e ffe ct of any

applicablestatutes of limitations. W hen 18 “ fa i l [ i ng] t o c onf

i r m tha te a c h of

the 6, 729 uni t s ha d the de fe c t i ve m ot or i z e d door l at ch as se m bl y. ” N ot w i thst andi ng thi s e rr or, w e a gree w i th t he di stri ctcourtthat M ay t ag di d n otes t abl i sh the re qu i si t e a m ou nti n con trovers y by aprepon dera nce o f th e e v id e n c e . A s the di s tr i c tc our tpoi nt e d out , J a r r e t t ’ s de c l a r a t i on of fe r e d no e xpl a na t i on as t o h ow she a rr i ved atthe concl usi on thatthe 6, 72 9 range/ ov en un i t s had a “ t ot al val ue” of $5, 93 1, 97 1. Itappears fr om Ja rr ett ’ s deposi t i on thatshe w as prov i ded w i th t he m ostre ce ntm anufacturer ’ s s ug gest ed re t ai l pri ce (“ M S R P ”) for e ac h m od el t ype a ti ss ue, bu ti ti s uncl ea r w hether tho se M S R P s w ou l d i n any w ay r e f le c t th e c o m p e n s a to r y d a m a g e s , in te r e s t, a n d c o s ts th a t M ie d e m a s e e k s . F urtherm ore, Ja rr ett ’ s s t at em entthat6, 72 9 o f the ra ng e/ ov en m od el s a ti ss ue w er e

“ so l d ” i n F l o ri d a i s n o tb ased o n actu al sal es d at a. A s Jarret t ’ s d ep o si t i o n rev eal s, tha tf i gur e i s m e r e l y a gue s s ba s e d on ( 1) M a y t a g’ s r e c e i ptof a t ot a l of

2, 943 prod uctre gi stra t i on s f

rom F l ori da consum er s for the ra ng e/ ov en m od el s a ti ss ue, a n d ( 2 ) M a y ta g ’s e s tim a te th a t, n a tio n w id e , o n ly a b o u t 4 3 .6 % o f th e u n its it m a nufa c tur e s a r e r e gi s t e r e d by c ons um e r s . E ve n i f w e a s s um e tha tthi s ki nd of es t i m ati on i s r el i abl e, i tpres um es thatthe ra t e of r egi stra t i on by F l ori da consum er s cl osel y par al l el s M ay t ag’ s nati on al aver age. 9determining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purpose s, however, courts cannot look past the complaint to the merits of a defense that has not yet been established. Se eJ oh ns Manville Sales Corp. v. Mitchell Enters., Inc. , 4 17 F .2 d 1 29 , 1 31 (5 th C ir . 1 96 9) (alth ou gh s tate statute of limitations might in fact bar plaintiff from recoveringa sum sufficient to trigg er the jurisdic tio nal thre sh old ,“ thi s is a fac tual is su ere qu iringan adju dic atio n o n th emeri ts o f this case ,” and theavailability of the de fense , even if

apparent on the face of

the complaint, “doe s not operate to deprivethe fe deral court of jurisdiction”) . 19 G i ven t he part i cul arfa ct s a nd ci rc um st ance s of the i nst antca se , the di stri ct c our tdi d note r rw he n i tfound tha t“ gr e a tunc e r t a i nt y ” r e m a i ne d a boutthe a m ount i n con trovers y, re sol ved t hatun ce rt ai nt y i n favor of remand , and con cl ud ed that M a y ta g h a d n o t e s ta b lis h e d , b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t th e a m o u n t in controvers y e xcee ded $ 5, 00 0, 00 0. A cc ordi ng l y, re m and for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att er j uri sdi cti on w as approp ri at e. I V . CONCL US I ON In re sol vi ng the i ss ue of subj ec tm att erj uri sdi cti on , the di stri ctcourt pr ope r l y pl a c e d the bur de n of pr oof on the M a y t a g, the r e m ovi ng pa r t y , a nd di d not e r rb y a p p ly in g th e p r in c ip le th a t d o u b ts a b o u t ju r is d ic tio n a r e to b e r e s o lv e d in fa vo r of r em and. F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w hen i tconcl ud ed M a y ta g h a d n o t e s ta b lis h e d , b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t th e a m o u n t in c ontr ove r s y e xc e e de d $5, 000, 000, a s r e qui r e d by C A F A . W e the r e for e a f f i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. U nl e s s he l d by a n a c t i ve j udge of thi s c our t , the m a nda t e s ha l l i s s ue on J une 22, 2006. AF F I RME D.