Case Name: Barbara SCHWARTZ, an individual, Carole Neitlich, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Third Party, Plaintiff-Appellee, Rusty Scott, an individual, Defendant-Appellee, Hauck Enterprises, Ltd., a Texas Corporation, Third Party Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-05
Citations: 554 F. App'x 823
Docket Number: No. 13-11830
Parties: Barbara SCHWARTZ, an individual, Carole Neitlich, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Third Party, Plaintiff-Appellee, Rusty Scott, an individual, Defendant-Appellee, Hauck Enterprises, Ltd., a Texas Corporation, Third Party Defendant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 823–824

Head Matter:
Barbara SCHWARTZ, an individual, Carole Neitlich, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Third Party, Plaintiff-Appellee, Rusty Scott, an individual, Defendant-Appellee, Hauck Enterprises, Ltd., a Texas Corporation, Third Party Defendant.
No. 13-11830
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 5, 2014.
Michael J. Avenatti, Eagan Avenatti, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Edward M. Ricci, Law Office of Edward M. Ricci, Esq., Jupiter, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Ted Christopher Craig, Christopher N. Johnson, Anastasia Protopapadakis, William M. Pearson, PA, Barry R. Davidson, Jamie Zysk Isani, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Third Party, Plaintiff-Appellee/Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The District Court grounded its subject matter jurisdiction in this class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), rejecting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case on the "grounds argument that diversity jurisdiction is absent and that SCI lacked the authority to remove." Order dated November 8, 2012. The court thereafter granted the defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Order dated March 25, 2013.
Plaintiffs now appeal, renewing the arguments they made in support of their motion to remand and in favor of standing. We find no merit in these arguments for the reasons the District Court gave in rejecting them.
AFFIRMED.