Legal Opinion

Michael Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided July 28, 2017No. 16-2300PublishedCited by 135 opinions

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

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Lincoln Property Co. v. RocheSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  5. 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

  1. Levone Harris v. Km Industrial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
  2. Bartels Ex Rel. Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
  3. Gilmore v. JonesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2019
  4. In re KBR, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API