N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ILL TAYLOR ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OX C OM M U

NIC ATIONS C ALIFOR

NIA, LLC , Errone ously

Sue d As: C oxC o m , Inc ., a

nd C o xC om , LLC ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-56661 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-01915-C JC -JPR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, W . FLETC HER , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s C ox C om

m unic ations, Inc . a

nd C ox C om

m unic ations C a lifornia , LLC (“ De fe nda nts” or “ C ox” ) ha

v e re m ove d

this c la ss a c tion, pursua

nt to the C l a ss Ac tion Fa irne s s Ac t (“ C AFA” ). Pla intiff m ove d to re m and on two 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.grounds. First, Plaintiff c onte nde d tha t De fe nda nts ha d no ba sis to justify a
suc c e ssive re m ova l pe t ition. Se c ond, Pla intiff c onte nde d tha t De fe nda nts’ se c ond Notic e of R e m ova l wa s untim e ly be c a use it fe ll outside

of one of C AFA’ s thirty
da y filing windows. The

distric t c ourt de nie d Pla intiff’ s M o tion to Re m and. W e
a ffirm
. W e have a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1453(c ), and re vie w the
re m and orde r de novo. Ibarra v . Manhe im Inv s., Inc
. , 775 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th C ir. 2015). Fa c tua l findings, howeve r, are re v ie we d for c le ar e rror. Re a v . Mic hae ls Store

s Inc
. , 742 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th C ir. 2014) (pe r c uriam ) (c iting Fe d. R . C iv. Pro. 52(a )(6)). “ Unde r C AFA, we have 60 da y s from the tim e we a c c e pt the a ppe a l to c om

ple te a l l a c tion on suc h a

ppe a l , inc luding re nde ring judgm e nt[.] ” Low de rmilk

v . U.S. Bank

N a t’l Ass’n , 479 F.3d 994, 996 (9th C ir. 2007), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Standard Fire Ins. C

o. v . K now le s , 133 S. C t. 1345 (2013) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). W e hold tha

t De fe nda nts’ se c o nd re m ova l pe tition wa s pe rm i ssiblegive n that the re ha d be e n a “ re le v ant c ha

nge of c irc um s ta

nc e s” in the thre e y e ars sinc e the i r first pe tition. Re

y e s v . Dollar Tre e Store

s, Inc
. , 781 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting K

irk bride v . C ont’l C as. C o. , 933 F.2d 729, 732 (9th C i r. 1991)). At the tim e of De fe nda

nts’ first Notic e of R e m ova l , the “ l e ga l c e rta i nty ” te st

2de sc ribe d in Low de rmilk a pplie d. Two m onths a fte r the distric t c ourt gra nte d Pla i ntiff’ s M otion to Re m and, the Supre m e C ourt in Standard Fire he ld tha t a would-be c la s s re pre se ntative c annot stipula te on be ha lf of the would-be c la ss tha t the c la s s will se e k le ss tha n the C A FA jurisdic tiona l a m ount. 133 S. C t. at 1349. Late r that sa m e y e ar, we he l d tha

t the Standard Fire

rule fata lly

unde rm ine d our

“ le ga l c e rta inty ” te st in Low de rmilk . Our ne w (an d now gove rning) ruleis tha t “ [a ] de fe nda n t se e king re m o va l of a

puta t ive c la ss a c tion m

ust de m onstra

t e , by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e , tha t the a ggre gate am ount in c ontrove rsy e xc e e ds the j urisdic tiona l m inim

um .” Rodrigue

z v . AT & T Mobility

Se r v s. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th C ir. 2013); s e e also Re a , 742 F.3d a t 1239. “ B e c a

use the first re m and
wa s on ‘ grounds tha

t subse que ntly

be c am e inc orre c t ,’ the suc c e ssive re m o va l [i] s pe rm issible .” Re

y e s , 781 F.3d a

t 1189 (quoting Re a , 742 F.3d a t 1238). W e ne e d not re a c h the que stion of whe the r the C a lifornia Supe rior C ourt’ s c e rtific ation orde r a lso qua lifie d a s a

re le va nt “ c ha nge in c irc um sta

nc e ” pe rm itting a

suc c e ssive pe tition. W e a lso hold tha

t De fe nda nts’ se c ond Notic e of R e m ova l wa s tim e ly . “ A C AFA c a se m ay

be re m o ve d [by

a de fe nda nt] at a ny tim e , provide d tha

t ne ithe r of the t wo thirty -day pe riods unde r § 1446(b)(1) a n d (b)(3) ha s be e n trigge re d.” Roth
v . C HA Hollyw ood Me d. C

tr., L.P. , 720 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th C ir. 2013). B oth

3pa

rtie s a dm it tha

t the first thirty -day

c loc k wa s ne ve r trigge re d. 28 U.S.C
. § 1446(b)(1). W e a gre e . “ [N] otic e of re m ova bility unde r §1446(b)[1] is de te rm i ne d through e xam ination of thefour c orne rs of the a pplic a ble ple a dings[.] ” Harris v . Bank

e rs Life & C a s . C o. , 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th C ir. 2005). Ne ithe r the initia l c om

p la int nor theFirst Am e nde d C om pla int (“ FAC ” ) “ re ve a ls on its fa c e the fa c t s ne c e ssa

ry for fe de ra l c o urt jurisdic t ion.” Re a , 742 F.3d a t 1238 (quoting Harris , 425 F.3d a

t 691-92). W e a lso a gre e with thedistric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Pla intiff ne ve r provide d the D e fe n da

nts “ othe r pa

pe r” suffic ie nt to trigger the se c ond thirty -day c loc k. 28 U.S.C . § 1446(b)(3). Though we a c c e pt argue n do Pla i ntiff’ s a rgum e nt tha

t Pla i ntiff’ s de p o sition in c om bina tion with othe

r doc um e nts c ould ha

ve trigge re d the s e c ond thirty -day

c loc k , it did not do so he re . De fe nda

nts’ first Notic e of R e m o va l a l le ge d c e rta in figure s tha t we re supporte d by

only an unsworn de c la ration by C ox e m

ploy e e Susa

n Irwin. The distric t c ourt de t e rm ine d tha t those figure s we re unre lia

ble and c ontra dic tory , e v e n a side from the proble m ste m

m ing from the la c k of a

sworn de c la

ration. Thede c la

ration provide d no support for De fe nda nts’ a ssum

p t ion tha t “ c la ss m e m

be rs worke d four shifts per we e k or fifty
we e ks pe r y e a

r.” Furthe r, “ De fe nda

nts a ssum e [d] tha

t a l l 600 c la ss m e m

be rs worke d for the e ntire c la ss pe riod. This is c o ntra dic te d by De fe nda nts’ own
4e vide nc e , whic h de m o nstra te s tha t Pla i ntiff le ft his e m

ploy m e nt in M ay

2012,
a pproxim ate l y

five m onths be fore the e nd of the c la ss pe riod [a nd]
. . . e vide nc e that 138 of the600 individua ls se p arat e d from

e m ploy m e nt with the

De fe nda nts” be fore the c la ss pe riod e nde d. The c ourt found sim i la r de fic ie nc ie s in a ssum

ptions
m a de to c a lc ulate pote ntia l wa iting time pe na ltie s . Pla intiff’ s subse que nt de position provide d insuffic i e nt a dditional inform at ion to c ure the de fe c ts in theinitia l re m o va l. W e c onc lude tha t inform at ion a lre a dy

c onta ine d

in the re c ord, c om

bine d with inform ation in the de position, wa s insuffic ie nt to e sta blish a n am ount in c ontrove rsy

e xc e e ding five
m illion dolla

rs. The se c ond thirty -day c loc k wa s the re fore not trigge re d by Pla i ntiff’ s de p o sition. De fe nda nts we re thus fre e to re m ove at a ny tim e a fte r the

“ c h ange in c irc um sta

nc e s .” Pla intiff doe s not inde

pe nde ntly c onte st tha

t the am o unt in c ontrove rsy
e xc e e ds $5 m illion, nor doe s he c onte st a ny of the othe r jurisdic t iona l re quire m e nts for re m ova l unde r C AFA. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts a s soc iate d with this a p pe a l. AFFIRM E D.

5Taylor v

. C ox C om m unic ations; 16-56661 RE INH ARDT , Cir c uit Judge , disse nting:

C ox C om m unic ations repre se nte d to thec ourt in its first rem ova l pe tition that the c a se wa s re m ova

ble unde r a

pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e sta nda rd. The
c ourt re m ande d

the c a se to sta

te c ourt, howe v e r, be c a

use C ox ha d not prove n
re m ova bility to a le ga l c e rta inty , whic h

it he ld to be the a

pplic a ble sta nda rd. Thus, whe n the la

w c ha nge d a nd the pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e sta nda rd wa s he ld to gove rn re m ova

bility d i spute s, C ox wa s put on notic e tha t the c a se wa s ne wly
re m ova ble . The c ha

nge in the la

w the re fore trigge re d a

30-da y re m ova l pe riod unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1446(b)(3). I would hold tha t the se c ond re m ova l wa s untim e ly
and gra nt Ta y lor’ s pe tition for re m and. 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS