## 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

- 8038 I N RE : S PR I NTN EX TELC OR PO RA T I ON, P etitio ner.

Pe tition fo r P ermiss ion toA pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the No rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C2192

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judg e. S UB MI TT ED O CT OB ER 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 28, 2010

Befo re F LA UM, E VANS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Spri nt N extelhas pe titi oned f orl eave to appealthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s r em and to sta te cour t ofa cl ass act i on a gai nst i t. The co m pla i nt al l ege d vi ol ati ons ofthe K ansas U nfa i r Trade a nd Consum er Pro tect i on Act. The di stri ct c ourtdecl i ned to exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i o n o n the g r o und tha t th e su i t f el l wi th i n the hom e- sta te excepti on t o t he Cl ass A cti on F ai rnes s Act (C A FA ). See 28 U
. S. C

. § 1332(d )( 4)(B). The com pla i nt, fi l ed i n K ansas st ate co urt, al l ege s that Sprint N extel, a K ansas co rpor ati on, c onspi re d w i th2 N o. 09

- 8038 othe r cel l phone pro vi ders t o i m pose ar ti fi ci al l y hi gh pr i c e s f o r t e xt
- mes s a g e s e r v i c e . T he p l a i nt i ff s de c l ar ed that they w ere b rin ging the s uito n behal fo fthem sel ves an d “ a l l Ka n s a s r es i den ts ” who pur ch as ed te xt m ess agi ng fro m S pri nt N extelo r one ofi ts alleged coco nspir ato rs betw een J anuary20 05 and O cto ber20 08, w hen the sui t was in iti ate d. Bu t they a l so speci fi ed tha tthe i r c l a s s wa s l i mi t e d o nl y t o tho s e wh o ( 1 ) h a d a Kans as c el l pho ne n um ber, ( 2) r ec ei ve d the i r c el l pho ne bi l l ata K ansas m ai l i ng address , and ( 3) pai d a Kansas “U SF fee ,” w h ich is a p p lied to all lon g-d ist an c e c alls wi thin Ka ns a s . I t ’ s n o tc l e a r wh a tthe thi r d f a c t o r a dds to the fi rs t t w o. Rega rdl ess , the p l ai nti ff s a sse rt ed that th es e t h r e e factors sho w ed that allthe class m em bers w er e Kansas ci ti zens. Sprint N extelr em ove d the case to the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f or t h e D i str i ct o fKansas pursuant to CA FA , 28 U
. S. C. § 1 332( d)( 2) , (d ) ( 5) , co ntending, as r equi r ed, tha t o ve r $ 5 m i l l i o n was i n c o nt r o ve r sy, the cl ass co ntai ned m or e than 10 0 m em ber s, and at l eas t one m em be r o fthe put at i ve c l as s, tho ug h mee tingthe th r e e c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d ab o v e , wa s n o ta Ka n s a s c i ti ze n. Sprint N exteli n fac t cam e up w i th fi ve non- K ansan pu tat i ve cl ass m em b ers, al l o fthem nati onalco rpor ati ons that subscr ibed to Kansas ce l l phone s ervi ce a s part ofthei r K an sa s pre sence and rec ei ved bi l l s a t a K ansas o ffi ce. The panelo n M ult i

- D ist ri ct Li ti gat i on tr ansfer re d thi s ca se , a long w i th o vera dozen o ther si m i l ars ui ts a g ains t ce l l pho ne c o m pan i es , t o the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s. The di str i ct c ourtag re ed w i th the pl ai nti ff s that the hom e- st at e excepti on re quir ed i t t o re m and the ca se.N o. 09

- 8038 3 T he requ irem en ts of the hom e-state ex cep tion are sim ple : i f “two-thi rds or m or e of the m em ber s of all pr o po se d pl aint i ffc lasses i n the a g g r eg at e, a nd the pri m ar y defendants, ar e ci ti zens ofthe St ate i n w hi ch th e action w as origina ll y fi led,” the d istri ct cou rt sh o u l d d ec lin e jur isd ict ion . 28 U .S.C . § 13 32 (d )(4) (B ). In r esistingr emand, S pr i ntNext ela r g ue d fi r sttha t th e pla i nt i ff s ha d pr e s e nt e d no e v i de nc e tha t t wo - thi r ds of thei r propos ed cl ass m em ber s were i n f act K ansas ci ti zens, as o pp ose d to, sa y, l oca l o ffi ces ofnati onalco rpora ti ons oro ut- of

- sta te stud ents at K ansas co l l ege s, ea ch ofwh om m i ght ha ve K ansas cel l phones a nd Kansas m ai l i ng add re sse s. S eco nd , S pri nt N extelar gued that ev eni fthe pl aint i ff s ha d do cument ed th e Kans as c i ti ze nshi p ofthe m em ber s o fthe propos ed cl ass , CA FA r equi r ed m o r e. S pr i ntNext elc o nt en d ed tha t when th e statu tory exc ep tion sp ecifi es th at “t w o -t hird s or m ore o fthe mem be r s o fa l l p r o po se d pl aint i ffc l as se s i n the agg re gat e” m u st be fro m the hom e s tat e, i t m eans tw oth ird s o f th e m em b er s o f th e p r o p os ed cla ss es in a ll l aw sui ts al l eging si m i l arco nd uct, notju st the propos ed cl ass i n thi s s uit
. A nd ther e was no w ay, Sp ri nt N extel conti nued , thatKansas ci ti zens c onst i tuted atl eas t tw oth irds of the m em bers ac ross th e p r op osed plaintiff cl ass es i n al l te xt- m ess agi ng ant i tr ust ca ses . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtrejec te d bo th arg u m en ts . First, i t r ul ed th ate ve n tho ug h the pl aintif f s pr es en te d no e v i d e n c e t o c o u n t e r S p r i n tN e x t e l ’ s a t t a c k s o n th e c o mposition of t he ir class, th ey “h av e defi ne d the pu tat i ve cl ass in su c h a w ay as to l eave l i ttl e doubt that at lea st tw o-t h ird s o f th e c la s s m em b er s a re K an sa s c iti-4 N o. 09

- 8038

ze ns . ” The c o ur t r ej ec te d the s ec o nd a r g um en t o n the gr ound that whil e th e l oca l

- contr ove rs y e xcepti on re quir es district c ourt s t o i nquir e whether ther e hav e be eno th erc l as s ac ti o ns wi ths i m i l ara l l eg at i o ns i n the past three ye ar s, 28 U
. S. C. § 1 332( d)( 4) ( A ) ( i i ), the hom esta te excepti on does n ot . Th e di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed f ro m thi s di sti ncti on that the hom e-s tate e xcepti on d o e s n o t, a s a r u l e , r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ofo th e r l a wsuits ; c onse quentl y, the defe nd ant’ s r eadi ng o fthe tw othi rds pr ovi si on, wh i ch w oul d require the co urt to l oo k beyo nd the f our cor ners o fthe com plain t, w as untenabl e. I n i ts peti ti on, S pri n t N ex telr enews i ts ar gum ents, wh i ch pr e s e n ti s s u e s o ffi r s ti mpr e s s i o n f o r th i s c o u r t
. S pr i nt N extelal so c on te nd s, i n l i ght o fthe othe r re l ate d sui ts an d the fact th at it i s a n a t io nw ide cell ph one prov ider, that thi s i s a nati onalco ntro ver sy, and just the s or t o f dispute that CA FA was desi gned to ke ep i n federa l co urt. W e fi rs t a dd re ss w hetherthe d en om i natoro fthe tw othi rds pr ovi si on i s the to talnum bero fpote nti alcl ass m embe r s i n thi s sui t o r i n al l sui ts w ith sim i l aral l ega ti ons. S prin t Nextel m ake s m uch ofthe l anguage , “pro

posed pl ai nti ffcl ass es i n the ag gr ega te, ” s ugges ti ng tha t th e on l y pos sibl e r eas on f orCongr ess ’ s r efer ence to plur al“cl ass es i n the agg re gat e” i s t o re quir e a di str i ct cour t t o sea rch out si m i l arcas es. W e j oi n the Fi rs t Cir cui t, the on ly ap pel l ate co urt to confro nt thi s i ssue, in rejec tin g t h at rea d in g. Se eIn reHann af or d Br os . Co. Cus t om e rD at a S e c. Br e ac h L i t ig. , 564 F.3d 75, 78-79 (1st C ir. 2009 )
. The Fi rs t Ci rcui t’ s r esponse to thi s a rgum ent was that ther e ca n be m or e than one c lass i n a s i ngl e cl ass acti on, and the plur all anguage i s m eant to ad dress thatN o. 09

- 8038 5

sc en ar io. Id. at 79. W e agree. For exa m p le, i n a tox ic tort c a s e th e r e c o u l d b e b o th a me d i c a l mo n i t o r i n g c l a ss a nd a pr o per tyr emedi ation c l as s. W i th o utthe r equi r ement th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ev al ua te th e ci ti ze ns hi p o f“ th e propos ed cl ass es i n the agg re gat e, ” o ne m i ght thi nk tha t so long as at leas t tw o-thirds of th e m em bers of o ne of thos e c l ass es w er e fro m the hom e s tat e, the excepti on wo u l d a p p l y . P r e v e n t i n gth a tmi s c o n c e pt i o n s e e ms p u rp os e e n ou gh f o r C A FA ’s re fer en c e t o “ c las se s in th e a gg re ga te .” M or eov er, i denti call anguage i s used i n the l oca l

- contr over sy excepti on, and i n that conte xt i t ca n’tm ean w hat S p rin t N extelsa ys i t doe s. The l oca l

- contr ove rs y excepti on is m or e int ri cate tha n the h o me- s t ate ex cep tion, bu t for ou r pu rp o s es only tw o elem en ts are i m po r ta nt
. F i r st, a s wi th the ho m e- st at e ex ce pti o n, “gre at er than tw o- thi rds o fthe m em ber s o fal l pro posed pla i nti ffcl ass es i n the agg re gat e [ m ust be ] c iti zens of the S tat e in w hi ch the acti on was or i gi n ally fi l ed. ” 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 332( d)( 4) (A )(i)
. S eco nd , the excepti on a pp l i es on l y i f “ du r i ng the 3

- y e a r pe r i o d pr e c e di ng the fi l i ngo f that cl ass act i on, no othe r cl ass act i on ha s b ee n fi l ed ass er ti ng the sa m e o r si m i l ar f actualal l ega ti ons aga i nst any o fthe defe nd ants
. . . . ” Id. a t 1332(d )( 4)(A )( ii ). U nd erS pri nt N extel ’ s r eadi ng, t h e fi rs t pr ovi si on w oul d requi re the dis tr i ct c ourtto ev al uate the fra cti on ofhom e- sta te pla i nti ff s i nvol ved in a l l si m i l arcl ass acti ons. But, says the s eco nd pro vi si on, i fther e a re si m i l ara c tions, i t’ s i pso f acto nota l oca l co ntro ver sy. Thus , f o r pur po se s o f th e l o ca l

- co nt r o ve r sye xc ept i o n, the c om position o fpro posed pl ai nti ffcl ass es i n other6 N o. 09

- 8038 si m i l arsui ts can neve r m att er . I fther e a re n ’t an y o ther si m i l arsui ts, the dist ri ct c ourtwould ofco urse evalu ate on ly th ose in the curren t case, and i f th ere ar e s i m i l arsui ts, the f act ofthei r exi ste nce c on tr ols , r eg a r d l es s o f th e c om p os itio n of th e p ro p os ed cla ss es in thos e s uit s. I t would be sur pri si ng i fthe sam e l anguage m ea nts o m ethi ngdi ff er en t i n the ho m e- st at e ex ce pti o n. See A tla ntic C lea ners & D y e r s v. U nited Sta tes, 286 U
. S. 42 7, 433 (1932 ). W e a l so rej ect Spri nt N extel ’ s i nsi nuati on that federa l j uri sdic ti on i s p ro p er , r ega rdl ess o fthe rul es setf or th in C A FA , b e cau se, it says, CA FA w as en acte d to ensu re th at na tional cont roversies, w h ich it asserts th is i s, are d ecid ed i n fed eral court. Th at m ay ha ve bee n C ong ress’s g en er alg o al, b uti t al so pr o vi ded f o r e xc ept i ons , a nd pla i nti ff s a re fre e t o “ci rcum scr ibe thei r cl ass defi ni ti ons” so th a tth e y c a n fi twi th i n o n e o fth o s e e x c e p t i o ns an d a vo id fed er al jur isd ict ion
. Jo h n s o n v . A d v a n c eA m. , 54 9 F.3 d 93 2, 93 7 (4 th C ir. 20 08 ); s ee al s o Pal i s ade s Col l e ct i ons LLC v. Shorts , 552 F.3d 32 7, 33 6 n . 5 ( 4 t h C ir. 20 08 ) (co ll ecting ca se s to the eff ect that any g ener alpol i cy em bodi ed in CA FA i n f avo r ofr em ova l j uri sdic ti on gives w ay to can ons of strict statu tory con stru ction). Furtherm or e, bec ause the ho m e- sta te excepti on, unl i ke th e loc al-c on tr ov er sy ex c ep tio n, i s fra m ed e n tir ely in te rm s o f th e p ar t i e s’ c itiz en sh ip , th e fa c t t h at th is sui t m ay be b ut a sl i ce o fa bi gge r c on tr ov ersy i s i rr el eva n t. T h e F irs t C irc u it c as e, In r e Hann af or d B ros. Co. Cus t o m erD at a S e c. Br e ac h L i t ig. , 56 4 F
. 3d 75, pro vi des a g o o d i l l us tr at i o n o f thi s po i nt
. Tha t appe ali nv o l ve d o neN o. 09

- 8038 7 of25 di ff er ent s uit s that were fi l ed i n vari ous di str i ct cour t s a g a i ns ta g r o c e r y c ha i n b a s e d in F l o r i da , a no ther that oper ate s in the N or theas t, and thei r com m on B elg ian p ar en t c om p an y. Id. at7 7 . D es p ite th e n at ion al, and ev en i nter nati onal, fl avo r ofthe contr ove rs y a s a w hole, th e Fir st C ircuit l ooked only at the ca se before i t a nd appli ed the ci ti zensh ip requi re m ents ofthe hom esta te excepti on. Because the pr i m ar y defendant w as a F l o r i da co r po r at i o n a nd a t l ea stt wo- th i r ds o fthe pl aintif f s wer e ci ti ze ns o fF l o r i da, the s ta te i n whi chthe ac ti o n was b r o ug ht, the F i r stCi r cui t affi r m ed th e re m an d ord er . Id. at80

- 81. I t’s m ore diffi cu lt to say w he th er th e d istrict cou rt’s r ul i ngo n the e vi den ti ar y i ss ue w as c o r r ec t. Onc e S pr i nt N ex te l e st ab l i sh ed th atCAFA ju r i sdi ct i o n e xi st s, the b ur de n f e l l o n the p l a i nt i ff s , wh o we re seekingr e man d, to s h o w th at th e h om e-s ta te ex c ep tio n ap p lies

. See H a rt v. FedE x Groun d P acka ge Sy st em , Inc. , 45 7 F
. 3d 675, 68 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. A nd to do that, the p l ai nti ff s had to es tabl i sh bya preponderance o fthe evi dence thattwothi rds o fthei r propos ed clas s m em ber s a re Kansas ci ti zens, thati s, ei theri nd i vi du al s dom i ci l ed i n K ansas orco rpor ati ons or gani zed ther e ( oro therbusi ness en titi es m eeting th e relevant tests). 28 U
. S. C

. § 1332(a), ( c); P reston v. Tenet H eal thsy stem M em ’l M ed. C tr. , Inc. , 4 85 F.3d 804 , 813- 1 4 ( 5 th Cir. 2007). T he plaintiff s d idn ’t subm i t a ny ev i dence abo ut ci ti zens h ip , b ut the dist ri ct c ou rtth o u g h t t h at th e c las s d efin itio n its elf, ke ye d as it i s t o K ansas cel l phone nu m b er s and m ai l i ng address es, m ade i t m o r e l i k el y tha n n o t th att wo- th i r ds o fthe pu tat i ve cl ass m em ber s a re Kansas ci ti zens.8 N o. 09

- 8038 T h is a p p ro ac h h as so m e a p p ea l. P eo p le w ith K an sa s c ell phones pre sum abl y have them bec ause they l i ved or wor k ed i n th e s t a t e a ts o me t i me , a n d th e c u r r e nt K ansas m ai l i ng add re sse s sugge st that they stil l do. Gr a n t e d , b e i n g a r e s i d e n t i s n ’ t th e s a me th i n g a s b ei ng a c itiz en , t h a t is to sa y, a d om icilia ry , M i s s i s s ippiBand of C hoctaw Indians v. H olyfie ld, 490 U .S. 30 , 48 (1 98 9); M eye rs on v . Ha r r a h ’s Ea s tC h i c ag o C a s i no , 2 99 F.3d 61 6, 617 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) , a nd pe o pl e who wo r k i n Ka ns a s b ut do n’tl i ve th ere

— such as com m uter s fro m Kansas C ity , M i ssou ri

— aren’ t Kansas ci ti zens. Yet, o ne would thi nk tha t th e vast m aj ority ofi nd iv id u a l K an sas cell ph one users do i n f act l i ve i n that sta te and that the va st m aj or i ty ofthem v iew it as thei r tr ue hom e. True, so m e o ftho se re si dents ar e co l l ege stud ents f ro m o therst ate s o r o th er s, s ucha s so l di er s, who c o m e to Kan sas wi th o ut the in te n t t o re m ai n i nd efi ni tel y. But i t’ s har d to b elie ve th at th os e no n d om icilia rie s ar e c olle c tiv ely m or e than a dro p i n t h e buck et w hen i t co m es to cl ass c om p os itio n . Th e p op u lat ion of K an sa s is ap p ro x im ate l y 2
. 8 m i l l i on peo ple , http: // quick f acts
. census. gov/ qfd /states /20000

. ht m l, bu t the state’s biggest m il itary bas e, Fort L e a v e n w orth, i s hom e to only 10,000 sol d iers a nd f a mi l y me mbe r s , h t t p: //us mi l i t a r y . a b o ut
. c o m/ o d/ arm ybas ep rofi les/ss/l eave nw orth_ 3.htm , and the ou t-ofst at e po pul at i o n o fthe Uni ve r si ty o fKans as , the sta te’ s bi gge st schoo l, i s under 10, 000, http: // col l ege s. coll egetool k i t. co m / co l l eg es / stude nt pr o fi l e/uni ve r si ty_of

_ k an sa s/ 15 53 17
. as px. The sa m e v i ew se em s e quall y a pp l i cabl e t o cel l phones belong ing to bu siness es. O n t h e on e han d , any ou t-of-N o. 09

- 8038 9

s t a t e c o mpa ni e s tha t pu r c ha s e t e xt mes s a g i ng f or Kans a s c e l l p h o n e s u s e d b y th e i r l o c a l e mpl o y e e s an d receive bills a t a K an sas m ail ing ad d ress w ou ld be p art o fthe c l a s s , b utn o tKa ns a s c i t i z e ns . Onthe o the r h a nd , w e i m agi ne thato nl y a fra cti on o fbusi nesse s that use K an s as ce ll p h on e s er vic e a re n otK an sa s c itiz en s. A ll in al l, we’r e incl i ned to th in k that a t l eas t t w o- thi rds o f thos e who have K ansas cel lphone nu m ber s a nd use K an sa s m ailin g a d d re ss es for t h eir ce ll p h on e b ills ar e pr obab l y Ka nsas ci ti zens. Cf

. Ki t s on v. Bank o

f E dw ardsvil le, No
. 0 6

- 5 2 8

- GP M , 2 0 0 6 WL 3 3 9 2 7 5 2 , a t* 6 ( S

. D. I l l

. N ov. 22 , 20 06) ( hol ding cour t “ enti tl ed to as sum e” that c lass m em ber s were I l l i noi s ci ti zens on ba si s o fI l l i nois m ai l i ng address es because, i n i ts vi ew , m ai l i ng address es are evid e n c e of reside nc e, w hich i s evide nc e of d om ici le) ; Caru s o v. All s t at eIns . Co. , 4 6 9 F
. S up p. 2 d 3 6 4 , 3 6 7

- 6 8 ( E. D. La. 20 07) (“A l though there wellm ay be pr opose d cl ass es w here detai l ed proo fo fthe tw o- thi rds c i ti zenshi p re quir em en t is r equi re d, the Cour t fi nd s that co m m on se ns e sh o uld pr ev ai l i n thi s cl o se d- en d c l as s i nv o l ving p eop le w ho, as noted , hold an ass et th at is a m easu re of d om icile , th eir h om e.” ); Be n n e t tv. B d. of C o mm’ rs f

o rE. Je ff erson Levee D is t. , N o s . 0 7

- 3 1 3 0 , 0 7

- 3 1 3 1 , 2 0 0 7WL 2571 942, at* 5 ( E.D. La. A ug. 31 , 200 7) ( hol ding i t was “r eas onabl e t o i nfe r” thattwo- thi rd s o fal l cl ass m em ber s were Louis i ana ci ti zens, wh er e cl ass was open to al l “r esi dents, dom i ci l i ar i es, busi n ess enti ti es, p rop er tyo wner s, a nd o th erpe r so ns a nd e nt i ti es r es i di ng or p re se n t” in a ce r ta in p ar ish in A u gu st 20 05 ); see also Joseph v. U nitr in, Inc. , N o. 1: 08- CV

- 07 7, 2008 W L 38229 38, at *6 ( E
. D
. Tex
. A ug . 12, 2008 ).10 N o. 09

- 8038 Bu t that’ s a l l gues sw or k. Se n sibl e guesswork, bas ed on a s ense ofhow the worl d w or ks, but guess w or k no neth el es s. The r e ar e an y numbe r o fway s inwhi cho ur ass um pti ons about the ci ti zenshi p of thi s vast cla ss m i ght di ff erfro m r eal i ty. Fo r exam ple , we m ay have gr oss l y u n deres ti m ate d the pre sence ofo ut- of

- sta te bu sines se s o r the numbe ro fKans as r es i den ts who don’ti ntend to sta y ind efi ni tel y. Or perhaps a f ar g r ea te r pe r ce nt age o fno ndo m i ci l i ar y r es i den ts us e te xt m ess agi ng tha n theirdom i ci l ed nei ghbor s. U l ti m ate l y, w e a gr ee w i th t he m aj or i ty ofdi str i ct c ourt s that a c ou rtm ay n otd ra w co n c lu sio n s a b ou t t h e c itiz en sh ip o fc l as s m embe rs b as ed o n thi ng s l i k e th ei r pho ne num ber s a nd m ai l i ng addres ses . I n G erst ene ckerv . Te r min ix In t’ l, Inc. , No. 0 7- CV- 01 64

- M J R, 2007W L 2 746847 ( S. D. I l l

. S ept. 19 , 20 07) , the dist ri ct c o ur t r e fus e d t o r e man d a c a s e whe r e the c l a ss w as defined as a lli nd i vi du al s a nd enti ti es that own pro perty i n I l l i noi s a nd purchase d exter m i nati on co ntra cts f ro m the defendant. The co urt w as tr oubl ed both by the f act that the c l ass co uld i ncl ud e absente e l andlo rds fro m othe r sta tes and al so by the l ack ofpro ofthatany I l l i noi sre sid en t o w n er s w er e i n d ee d Il lin ois cit ize n s. “In ess ence, pl ai nti ff s a sk thi s Courtt o concl ud e that because the re alpro pertyati ssue i s l oca ted i n I l l i noi s, twothi rds of the m em ber s o fthe propos ed cl ass i n the aggr ega te ar e ci ti zens ofIl li noi s. That m ay orm ay not be tr u e b u t e ith er co n c lu sio n req u ire s a lea p of fait h th is Co ur tc a nn o tm ake

. ” Id. a t * 2. The pl aint i ffi n Phil l ips v. Sever n Tre nt Envtl. Se rv. , Inc. , N o. 07

- 3889 , 20 07 W L 27571 31 (E .D . L a. Se p t. 19 , 200 7), so u gh t re m an d u n d er th e loc al-N o. 09

- 8038 11 contr ove rs y e xcepti on f or a putati ve cl ass thatwas de fi ne d a s a l l p e r s o ns wh o we r e l i v i ngi n a p ar ti cul ar Lo ui si an a co unty d uri nga o ne - wee kpe r i o d i n 2 00 7 an d u se d co n ta m in at ed w at er . Id. at *1 -* 2 . T he district cou rt ac k no wl edg ed th at“ th er e i s so m e i ntui ti ve a ppea l t o the cl ai m ” th att wo- th i r ds o fthe pe o p le w ho l i ve d i n the coun ty d u ri ng tha t week w er e ci ti zens ofLoui si ana a t the t i m e th e co m pl aintwas fi l ed o nl y t wo months l at er, bu t held suc h intu iti on d id n ot estab li sh by a prep ond eran ce o fthe e vi den ce th atthe c i ti ze ns hi p r equi r ement w as sa tis fied

. Id. at* 3. A si m i l ars tr ug g l e pl ay ed o uti n A nthony v . S m all Tube M f g. Corp. , 5 35 F
. S upp. 2 d 5 06 ( E. D. Pa
. 2 00 7) , wher e th e distric t co urt rej ecte d the ar gum ent that t w o- thi rds o f th e c las s m em b er s w er e b ou n d to be P e n n sy lva n ia ci ti ze ns , g i ve n a c l as s defi ne d a s ev er y o ne who w or ked ata parti cul arPennsyl vani a f actory overa 35- yea r peri od. T h e c ou rtsa i d that e ven though sa ti sf acti on of t h e c itiz en sh ip req u ire m en t “ m ay be a re as on ab le i nfe re nce, i t doe s no t sat isfy the pla i nti ff’ s bur den of proo f, ” be c au se som e o fthe em plo yee s m ay have m ove d wh en the y l eft th ei r j o bs , o r may no t ha ve b ee n c i ti ze ns ev en w h en th e y w e re w or kin g a t t h e fa c to ry . Id. at51 7. And i n Sc hwar tz v. Com ca s tCorp. , N o. Ci v. A
. 05

- 2340 , 20 06 W L 4 87 915 ( E.D. Pa. Fe b. 28 , 20 06) , the cour t r ule d that th e p lain tiffs h ad n ote s t a b l ish ed th e P en n sy lva n ia c itize n sh ip of tw o-t h ird s o f a c las s t h ey d efin ed as “[a ]ll per so ns a nd e nt i ti es r es i di ngo r do i ngb us i ne ss i n the Com m on w ea lth of P en n sy lva n ia w h o s u b sc rib ed to Com cast ’ s hi gh- speed i nter net s er vi ce” du ri ng a giv en on e-y ea r p er iod

. Id. at*3; see also E va ns v . Wa lter12 N o. 09

- 8038 Indus. , Inc. , 4 49 F
. 3d 11 59 , 11 65

- 66 ( 11 thCi r . 20 06 ) ( r ej ec ting a s s e r t i o n th a tt wo - th i r d s o fp l a i n t i ffc l a s s w e r e A l a b a ma ci ti zens, wh er e cl ass w as defined as “ [ a] l l pro perty own er s, l ess ees , [ and] l i censee s of pr oper ti es” o n w hi ch the defendants r el eas ed to xi ns 85 ye ar s e ar l i er, as w ell as “al l i nd i vi du al s w h o h ave com e into conta ct” w i th tho se toxi ns; co urt f ound no evi d en c e that tw o- thi rds o ftho se ha rm ed du ring l en gth y pe riod w ere stil l, or in d eed ever, A labam a citi zen s). Thi s wo u l d h a v e b e e n a mu c h s i mpl e r c a s e i fth e p l ai nti ffs had fo l l owed ei thero ftwo approa ches. Fo r sta rt er s, ra therthan re l yi ng o n the f act that per the cl ass defi ni ti on ea chc l as s m embe r ha s a Kans as c el l pho ne numbe r a nd bi l l i ng address ( and paid t h e K ansas U SF fee, wh ate ver that i s) , theym i ght ha ve subm i tte d evi dence thattwothi rds o fthe cl ass m em ber s w er e ind eed Kansas d om icilia rie s o r b u sin es se s. G ive n th at th er e a re p ro b ab ly h u n d re d s o f th ou sa n d s o f p u ta tiv e c las s m em b er s, if not m or e, i t would be i nfe asibl e t o docum ent e ach cl ass m em ber ’ s ci ti zenshi p i nd i vi du al ly, but the di str i ct co ur tc o u l d h a v e r e l i e d o n e v i d e n c e g o i n gt o th e c i t i ze nsh i p o fa r epr es en ta ti ve s am p le

. Thi s ev i den ce might have i nc l ud e d a ffi da v i t s o r s ur v e y r e s po ns e s i n whi ch pu tat i ve cl ass m em ber s r eve alwh ethertheyi ntend to re m ain in K an s as ind efin ite ly, see P reston v. Tenet Healthsyst em M em ’l M ed. C tr ., Inc. , 48 5 F
. 3d 804, 81 7 ( 5th C ir. 20 07 ); M arti n v. Lafon N urs in g Facili ty of the H oly Fam ily, Inc. , 548 F. Sup p . 2d 268, 273 -74 (E.D. La. 2008), or, i fthe y a r e bus i ne ss es , their c i ti ze ns hi p unde r the r el ev an t te st
. Gi ve n tho se r es ul ts a nd the s i ze of theN o. 09

- 8038 13

sa m pl e an d the e st i m at ed si ze o fthe p ropo se d c l as s, the dist ri ct c ou rt co uld then have used sta ti sti calpri nci ple s t o r e a c h a c o nc l us i o n a s t o the l i k e l i ho o d tha tt wo - thi r ds orm or e o fthe propos ed cl ass m em ber s are c itizens o f K ansas . S tat i sti ci ans a nd sci enti sts usual l y wa n t a t l eas t 95 p er c en t ce rt ain ty , see M i chaelO. Finkel ste i n & Bruce L ev in, Sta tistics for L a w yers 1 20 , ( 2d ed. 2 00 1) , b uta ny num bergr eat er than 5 0 per cent w oul d have a l l owed the di str i ct c ourtto co ncl ud e that the pl ai nti ff s had es tabl i shed the ci ti zenshi p r eq uir em ent b y a pre pond er ance of t h e e vid en c e. S e e Et h y l Co rp . v . EPA , 541 F. 2d 1, 28 n. 58 (D.C

. Cir. 1976) (en ban c). A lte rn at i v e l y , th e p lain tiffs m igh t h av e d efin ed th eir clas s a s a l l Kansas ci t ize ns who pur ch as ed te xt m ess agi ng f ro m Spri nt N ex te l or an allege d cocon sp irator. By using that de fi nition, th e plaintiff s c ou ld h av e g u ar an te ed th at th e s u it w ou ld rem ain in state cou rt. Th ere w ou ld h ave been n o c onc ern th at ou t-ofst a t e b us i ne s s e s , c o l l e g e s t ud e nt s , s o l di e r s , a nd the l i ke c om p ris ed gre at er th an on e-t h ird of th e c l a ss , an d it doesn’ t t ake any evi dence to es tabl i sh thatKansas ci ti zens m ake up at l eas t t w o- thi rds o fthe m em ber s o f a c las s t h at is op en on ly to K an sa s cit ize n s. Se eJohns on v . A d v a n c eA m. , 54 9 F
. 3d 93 2, 93 7- 38 ( 4th Ci r . 20 08)
. The tr ade o ff i s th at th i s defi ni ti o n woul d ha ve l i m i te d the po o l o fpo te nt i alcl as s m embe r s, s o m ethi ngtha t pl ainti ff s a nd thei r l aw yer s a re apparent l y unw i l l i ng to do. A c c or d i ngl y, we G RANTthe peti ti on f orl eave to appeal a nd V ACATE the or der r em anding the c ase to st ate co urt. O n rem an d , the d istri ct c o u r t sh ou ld give the p lai nt iffs14 N o. 09

- 8038 anothe r opportunity t o p rove that the pr opose d cl ass sa ti sfi es the r equi r ement s o fthe ho m e- st at e ex ce pti o n.

1- 28- 10