Jose Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23856
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- CAFA local controversy exception at issue in a CA remand dispute over class action against Capital One Auto Finance.
- Mondragon sought remand to California state court from federal court based on CAFA, asserting two-thirds class citizenship are California citizens.
- Mondragon offered no evidence of prospective class members' citizenship; relied solely on class definitions.
- District court remanded, agreeing definitions showed two-thirds California citizens; thus CAFA local controversy applied.
- Capital One appealed, arguing no evidence supported citizenship and remand was improper.
- Court holds that ordinarily factual evidence is required to prove citizenship; may permit discovery and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CAFA require evidentiary proof of class citizenship for local controversy? | Mondragon: inference from class definitions suffices. | Capital One: need evidence; no proof presented. | Ordinarily requires facts in evidence; inference alone insufficient. |
| May a court rely on class definitions to infer citizenship without evidence? | Class defined to California purchasers implies California citizenship. | No evidence challenges; definitions alone cannot prove citizenship if disputed. | Only if class is defined to California citizens; otherwise need evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 593 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010) (requires evidence; cannot rely on guesswork for citizenship)
- Preston v. Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2007) (consider residency evidence; entire record matters)
- Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2006) (citizenship proof required when disputed)
- Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 631 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2011) (look beyond pleadings for jurisdictional facts)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (preponderance standard for jurisdictional facts)
- Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) (presumption of domicile in citizenship analysis)
- Anderson v. Watts, 138 U.S. 694 (1891) (residence as prima facie evidence of domicile)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (residence and domicile considerations in citizenship)
- Uston v. Grand Resorts, Inc., 564 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1977) (pleadings alone may justify jurisdictional allegations)