Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

July 28, 2017

MICHAEL A. SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, f/k/a Cricket Communications, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Amicus Supporting Appellant.

          Argued: May 11, 2017

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03330-GLR; 1:15-cv-03759-GLR)

         ARGUED:

          Charles Alan Rothfeld, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

          Benjamin Howard Carney, GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

         ON BRIEF:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Matthew A. Waring, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

          Martin E. Wolf, GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

          Kate Comerford Todd, Warren Postman, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC., Washington, D.C.; Ryan L. Bangert, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for Amicus Curiae.

          Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

          DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:

         This appeal concerns the degree of evidentiary 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 2013 and March 2014, Scott purchased two Samsung Galaxy S4 cellular phones from Cricket for "hundreds of dollars each." J.A. 28. The phones are only operable on a network using Code Division Multiple Access ("CDMA") technology. Known to Cricket, but not to Scott, at the time Scott purchased his phone Cricket had begun to shut down its CDMA network. When Cricket completed that process in 2015, Scott alleges that his phones--which were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.