Celena King v. Great American Chicken Corp., 903 F.3d 875

King filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of current and former non-exempt California GAC employees alleging California wage-and-hour violations; class potentially ~6,000 members.
GAC removed under CAFA; removal undisputedly proper (amount-in-controversy, class size, at least one out-of-state class member).
King sought jurisdictional discovery on class members’ last-known addresses and citizenship to show CAFA’s local/home-state controversy exceptions applied (requiring > two-thirds of class to be California citizens).
GAC resisted discovery but offered a stipulation that at least two-thirds (described alternatively as at least 67%) of putative class members had last-known addresses in California; King declined.
The district court accepted the stipulation in lieu of discovery and granted remand to state court; GAC appealed.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the remand because the stipulation and record did not supply sufficient evidence by a preponderance that > two-thirds were California citizens at removal, and remanded for additional proceedings allowing King jurisdictional discovery and to renew remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether King met her burden to prove by a preponderance that > two-thirds of putative class members were California citizens at removal for CAFA local/home-state exceptions	King relied on GAC’s stipulation that at least two-thirds (or at least 67%) of last-known addresses were in California and asked court to infer citizenship from addresses	GAC argued the stipulation (and addresses) would not prove citizenship; pointed to known out-of-state domiciliaries and other uncertainties and resisted broad discovery	Remand vacated: stipulation and record insufficient to prove > two-thirds were California citizens; King must be allowed jurisdictional discovery and may renew remand motion

Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court must base CAFA citizenship findings on at least some facts in evidence; cannot rely on mere class definition)
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (state citizenship for diversity purposes requires U.S. citizenship and is established by domicile, not mere residence)
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) (citizenship determinations are essentially factual)
Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (CAFA’s primary objective favors federal adjudication of interstate class actions)
Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing CAFA home-state controversy exception)