Background

• Plaintiff John Q. Gale, a Connecticut attorney, sued multiple title insurance companies alleging they employed non‑Connecticut attorneys as title agents in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a‑402(13).
• The original complaint asserted class claims on behalf of Connecticut attorneys and was filed in federal court under CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)).
• The district court initially certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class, but the class was later decertified after Wal‑Mart v. Dukes limited (b)(2) certification where significant monetary relief is sought.
• After decertification, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) dropping all class‑action allegations and alleging only individual state law claims; the FAC pleaded no other basis for federal jurisdiction.
• Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the district court held that removal of the jurisdiction‑granting class allegations destroyed CAFA jurisdiction and dismissed the FAC without prejudice.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (jurisdiction assessed from the amended complaint; withdrawal of jurisdictional allegations defeats jurisdiction unless replaced)
• Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (time‑of‑filing rule explained; does not preserve jurisdiction when the amended complaint removes jurisdictional allegations)
• Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (limits Rule 23(b)(2) certification when significant monetary relief is sought)
• Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, 788 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2015) (applies Rockwell principles to CAFA cases filed originally in federal court)
• Metz v. Unizan Bank, 649 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2011) (denial of class certification does not automatically divest CAFA jurisdiction if class allegations remain)
• Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review: dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)