Opinion ID: 2760342
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Red Cab/Samuel-Bassett framework

Text: applies where the jurisdictional facts are not contested binding on the class as a whole prior to class-action certification and does not relieve the district court of its obligation to conduct its own analysis of the amount in controversy. 133 S. Ct. at 1349. We are not presented with a CAFA removal subject to the Morgan test and therefore do not opine on the implications of Knowles for Morgan’s holding that “defendants bear the burden to prove to a legal certainty that the complaint exceeds the statutory amount in controversy requirement” where the amount in controversy is alleged to be below the $5,000,000 threshold. Morgan, 471 F.3d at 475. However, consistent with both Knowles and Morgan, we emphasize for the sake of clarity that our instruction that a “Court must look to see if the plaintiff’s actual monetary damages in the aggregate exceed the threshold,” id. at 474–75, remains important in the wake of Knowles. 21 and the amount in controversy is “determined in whole or in part” by applicable law. Samuel-Bassett, 357 F.3d at 397–98. Here we ask whether it is clear to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed. Id. at 398.