In Re: Atlas Roofing Corporation Chalet Shingle Products Liability Litigation, 1:13-md-02495

Plaintiff Noble L. Brooks Jr., a Mississippi resident, purchased Atlas Chalet/Shingles and alleges they were defectively manufactured and caused roof leaks and home damage beginning in 2013.
Brooks filed a putative class action in the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of himself and similarly situated purchasers; related federal actions were transferred to the Northern District of Georgia MDL.
Atlas Roofing Corporation, a Mississippi corporation, manufactured and sold the shingles and is the sole named defendant.
Atlas moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, arguing no minimal diversity; the court denied dismissal at the pleading stage because the complaint could plausibly include non-Mississippi class members.
At the class-certification stage, Atlas renewed its jurisdictional challenge; because both named parties are Mississippi citizens, the court required Brooks to prove by a preponderance that at least one class member is from a different state.
Brooks failed to produce any evidence identifying a non-Mississippi class member; the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case, denying the class-certification motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFA minimal diversity exists	Brooks relied on his complaint’s inference that non-Mississippi class members plausibly exist and objected to raising jurisdiction at class-cert stage	Atlas argued both named parties are Mississippi citizens and Brooks must prove at least one non-Mississippi class member by a preponderance	Court held Brooks failed to meet burden; no minimal diversity proven and court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
Proper timing/vehicle to raise jurisdictional challenge	Brooks argued class-cert motion is not the proper vehicle to litigate jurisdiction	Atlas maintained subject-matter jurisdiction can be attacked at any stage and did so in its class-cert response	Court confirmed subject-matter jurisdiction must exist throughout and Atlas properly raised the issue

Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., M.D.'s P.A., 104 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1997) (distinguishes facial and factual jurisdictional attacks)
Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) (describes standards for facial vs. factual attacks on jurisdiction)
Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1980) (facial-attack framework quoted regarding pleading truthfulness)
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) (procedural safeguards for plaintiffs on facial jurisdictional attacks)
Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1999) (court may resolve disputed jurisdictional facts)
Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006) (explains CAFA jurisdictional requirements)
Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) (minimal diversity may be satisfied by one class member)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears burden of establishing it)