Michael Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal concerns the degree of evi-dentiary specificity with which a removing defendant must prove jurisdiction to defeat a motion to remand under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Defendant-Appellant Cricket Communications, LLC (“Cricket”) removed this class action from state court, invoking CAFA jurisdiction. The district court granted Plaintiff-Appellee Michael Scott’s motion to remand. Because the district court’s decision was based on a legal error, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
A
1
Sometime between July…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Lincoln Property Co. v. RocheSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by135 opinions
- Levone Harris v. Km Industrial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Bartels Ex Rel. Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
- Gilmore v. JonesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2019
- In re KBR, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
- Tu v. U-Haul Co. of S.C., Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2018
130 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.