Opinion ID: 1038530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of the Preponderance Standard

Text: The district court, relying on Rodriguez’s waiver of damages in excess of $5 million, did not undertake an analysis of AT&T’s evidence regarding the amount in controversy. We decline AT&T’s invitation to do so in the 2 Nothing in our opinion should be construed to comment on our court’s decision in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006). That decision concerned issues not presented in this appeal. RODRIGUEZ V. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES 15 first instance on appeal. See Horphag Research Ltd. v. Pellegrini, 337 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (remanding when intervening Supreme Court authority altered the standard at issue). AT&T also contends that Rodriguez waived challenging the amount in controversy under a preponderance standard because Rodriguez never argued it below. AT&T cites no authority for that proposition, nor could it. The preponderance standard did not apply to AT&T’s burden of proof prior to Standard Fire, so Rodriguez did not waive that challenge. See In Re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing three exceptions to the discretionary determination of waiver, including “when a new issue arises while appeal is pending because of a change in the law”). Because we hold that the legal certainty standard no longer applies to AT&T’s burden of proof on remand, and we vacate the district court’s order remanding the case to state court, we need not address AT&T’s bad faith argument.