Adrianne Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., 958 F.3d 1216

Background

Adams filed a putative California wage-and-hour class action in San Mateo County Superior Court on behalf of current and former non-exempt West Marine employees in California over the prior four years.
West Marine removed under CAFA; Adams moved to remand invoking CAFA’s home-state and local-controversy exceptions.
The district court authorized jurisdictional discovery; West Marine produced contact data for ~1,810 putative class members showing 1,714 with last known California addresses (~95%), and sampling showed ~95.5% address accuracy.
Adams submitted a declaration about onboarding practices (certifying U.S./California citizenship) and evidence of the address data; West Marine declined to produce broader payroll/personnel records.
The district court found by a preponderance that more than one-third of class members were California citizens and, applying the discretionary home-state exception, remanded the case to state court.
West Marine appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to show domicile and that the district court improperly raised the discretionary home-state exception sua sponte; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Adams met her burden to show >1/3 of putative class were CA citizens at removal	Last-known CA addresses for >90% of class plus onboarding practices and sampling accuracy make it more likely than not >1/3 domiciled in CA	Last-known addresses are an unreliable proxy for domicile/citizenship; plaintiff did not prove U.S. citizenship for class members	Court: evidence (90% CA addresses + declarations/sampling) reasonably supported finding by preponderance that >1/3 were CA citizens
Whether last-known mailing addresses suffice to infer domicile for CAFA exceptions	Addresses are probative and, given the large margin over 33%, suffice to meet the preponderance burden	Addresses alone don’t establish domicile or citizenship and can’t be assumed to mean CA domicile	Court: residence evidence is some evidence of domicile; the substantial cushion over one-third made inference reasonable
Whether the district court may raise the discretionary home-state exception sua sponte	Remand exceptions are properly considered and plaintiff had moved to remand	West Marine contended sua sponte invocation was improper because exceptions are abstention-based and require notice	Court: CAFA exceptions are non-jurisdictional and treated as abstention; courts may raise abstention sua sponte, so no error
Whether the district court abused discretion by not specifically soliciting briefing on the discretionary exception	General briefing order on the home-state exception encompassed both mandatory and discretionary bases	District court failed to give specific opportunity to brief the discretionary exception	Court: district court invited briefing on the "home state" exception (covering both bases) months earlier; parties had adequate opportunity and court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (class definition alone is insufficient; moving party must produce evidence to support domicile findings)
King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp., Inc., 903 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2018) (stipulations about last-known addresses are not enough by themselves to establish domicile for CAFA exceptions)
Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., 873 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2017) (moving party must provide facts in evidence to allow court to find class members’ citizenship)
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (state citizenship determined by domicile; residence and intent control)
Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2007) (practical limits on requiring inquiry into domicile of every class member; remand under discretionary exception reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Visendi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 733 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2013) (CAFA exceptions are non-jurisdictional and treated as abstention)