James Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams LLC
829 F.3d 963
8th Cir.2016Background
- A class sued the St. Louis Rams in Missouri state court under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act over the team's relocation to Los Angeles.
- The Rams removed the case to federal court invoking CAFA federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing lack of the minimal diversity required by CAFA.
- After removal, the Rams submitted two affidavits supporting diversity, but the district court refused to consider them because they were not attached to the original notice of removal.
- The district court remanded the case to state court; the Rams appealed that remand order.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing postremoval jurisdictional evidence and vacated the remand, sending the case back for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court may refuse to consider postremoval evidence of jurisdiction solely because it was not included in the notice of removal | Remand was proper; minimal diversity not established (court should not rely on postremoval affidavits) | Court should consider postremoval affidavits and allow jurisdictional discovery to establish CAFA diversity | Court held refusal to consider postremoval affidavits was an abuse of discretion; vacated remand and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether a notice of removal must include evidence proving jurisdictional facts | Notice need only plausibly allege jurisdictional facts; evidence not required unless challenged | Removing party may submit postremoval evidence when jurisdictional facts are disputed | Court endorsed that evidence is not required with the notice and may be considered postremoval when needed to resolve disputed facts |
| Whether jurisdictional facts arising after removal can affect jurisdiction | Facts after removal cannot create jurisdiction | Postremoval evidence that shows facts existing at removal may be used to prove jurisdiction | Court clarified that only facts arising after removal are irrelevant; preexisting facts may be proved with postremoval evidence |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying opportunity for jurisdictional discovery | Denial proper because notice statement should suffice | Denial prejudiced Rams by foreclosing ability to prove jurisdiction | Court found district court abused its discretion by refusing to consider affidavits and by foreclosing jurisdictional fact-finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (notice of removal need only plausibly allege jurisdiction; evidence not required unless challenged)
- Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2011) (federal jurisdiction is measured at time of removal)
- Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of jurisdictional discovery is abuse of discretion)
- Hargis v. Access Capital Funding, LLC, 674 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2012) (postremoval events generally do not affect jurisdiction)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery may be used to ascertain facts bearing on jurisdiction or venue)