Opinion ID: 2828940
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Removal Jurisdiction Under CAFA

Text: “A defendant generally may remove a civil action if a federal district court would have original jurisdiction over the action.” Allen v. Boeing Co., 784 F.3d 625, 628 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). In the present appeal, Defendants removed the Bridewell-Sledge action and the Crowder action pursuant to CAFA. “Congress enacted CAFA in 2005 to ‘curb perceived abuses of the class action device which, in the view of CAFA’s proponents, had often been used to litigate multistate or even national class actions in state courts.’” Corber, BRIDEWELL-SLEDGE V. BLUE CROSS OF CAL. 11 771 F.3d at 1222 (quoting Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952 (9th Cir. 2009)). “As a threshold matter, CAFA applies to ‘class action’ lawsuits where the aggregate number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes is 100 or more persons and where the primary defendants are not ‘States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.’” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1020 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)). If these prerequisites are met, CAFA vests federal courts with original diversity jurisdiction over a class action “if: (1) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and (2) any class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.” Id. at 1020–21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2)). “[U]nder CAFA, complete diversity is not required; ‘minimal diversity’ suffices.” Id. at 1021. The parties do not dispute that the above conditions for CAFA jurisdiction are met in both Bridewell-Sledge and Crowder. Rather, the parties’ dispute in this appeal concerns the applicability of CAFA’s local controversy exception.