MICHAEL A. SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee,
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
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)
Charles Alan Rothfeld, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Benjamin Howard Carney, GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD,
Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
A. Parasharami, Matthew A. Waring, MAYER BROWN LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
E. Wolf, GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD, Towson, Maryland,
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.
GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
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.
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 ...