Robert Rodriguez v. At&t Mobility Services LLC
728 F.3d 975
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Rodriguez filed a putative California class action against AT&T Mobility in state court, which AT&T removed to federal court under CAFA §1332(d)(2).
- Rodriguez alleged the aggregate amount in controversy was under $5 million and waived any excess, prompting remand by the district court.
- Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles later held such pre-certification waivers are ineffective to defeat CAFA jurisdiction, vacating the remand.
- The district court initially held that, under Lowdermilk, the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
- After Standard Fire, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded to determine jurisdiction under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- This appeal concerns whether Lowdermilk’s legal-certainty burden remains viable and what standard governs remand analysis for CAFA in class actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs the amount-in-controversy on remand? | Rodriguez | AT&T | Preponderance of the evidence standard applies |
| Does Standard Fire overrule Lowdermilk and invalidate the legal-certainty burden? | Rodriguez | AT&T | Standard Fire overruled and legal-certainty burden rejected |
| Can a plaintiff’s pre-certification waiver bind federal jurisdiction? | Rodriguez | AT&T | Waiver ineffective; cannot bind absent class |
| Should the remand order be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings? | Rodriguez | AT&T | Yes; vacate and remand for proper jurisdictional analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) (precertification stipulation not binding on class members; ties to aggregation requirement)
- Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (legal certainty burden to prove amount in controversy exceeds threshold)
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional questions and removal standards in CAFA context)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (preponderance standard applicable where plaintiff does not plead amount)
- In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (exceptions to waiver and standards for waiver-related issues on appeal)
- Lindsey v. United States, 634 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2011) (illustrates how later authority can undermine earlier circuit reasoning)
- Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012) (court defers to controlling precedent over subsequent conflicting authority)