CAFA Removal and Remand Checklist: A Practical Checklist

Document type: Checklist Practice area: Litigation — Class Actions Jurisdiction: United States (federal) Last reviewed: 5 September 2026

Part 1 — Day one

Date of FORMAL SERVICE on this defendant recorded: ____________ (the clock runs from service, not from a courtesy copy — Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999)).
REMOVAL DEADLINE — service + 30 days (28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1)): ____________
Internal deadline set at service + 20 days.
Service dates for each defendant recorded — each has its own window; consent is not required under § 1453(b).
State court extension obtained so the response deadline does not force the decision.
Transaction/volume data requested from the business — the longest-lead item.
Noted: the one-year limit in § 1446(c) does not apply to CAFA removals.
If remand is later ordered: § 1453(c) application due within 10 DAYS — calendared the day the order issues.

Part 2 — Intake: six questions

1. Is it a "class action" under CAFA? Section 1332(d)(1)(B) reaches actions under Rule 23 or similar State statute or rule. Representative actions without class machinery may not qualify — characterize, don't assume.
2. Are there 100 or more class members? Below that, § 1332(d)(5)(B) removes the case from CAFA.
3. Minimal diversity? Section 1332(d)(2) needs only any class member diverse from any defendant.
4. Aggregate amount in controversy over $5,000,000? Aggregate under § 1332(d)(6); do the arithmetic now.
5. Carve-outs? Section 1332(d)(9) excludes actions solely involving covered securities, internal affairs/governance claims under the law of the State of incorporation, or claims relating to rights and duties created by a security. Note "solely."
6. Governmental primary defendants? Section 1332(d)(5)(A).

Citizenship, alleged properly:

Corporations: State of incorporation and principal place of business — the nerve center under Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010).
Unincorporated entities: citizenship of every member, traced through every tier.
Natural persons: domicile, not residence.

Exception exposure assessed:

Is any defendant a citizen of the filing State? (Usually decides the local controversy analysis.)
Is the class defined by citizenship or by purchase location? (The latter is a gift to the defendant.)
Prior or parallel filings against us in the last 3 years — docket search run.

Part 3 — Reading the complaint for removability

Class definition read three times: geographic scope (citizenship, exceptions), temporal scope (volume), product/conduct scope (which data to pull).
Prayer for relief read, not just the damages allegations — restitution, statutory damages, actual damages, punitives, injunctive relief, fees.
Each cause of action checked for a statutory damages provision (often the cleanest path over $5,000,000).
Damages disclaimer noted — answered by Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013), because a named plaintiff cannot bind absent class members pre-certification.
Every defendant characterized: citizenship, role, filing-State citizen?
Carve-out trigger words searched: security, shareholder, fiduciary duty, internal affairs, governance.
Signs the pleading was drafted around CAFA noted (narrowed class, shortened period, modest remedy, local co-defendant with thin allegations).

Part 4 — Drafting the notice

Plead plausibly; do not prove. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) requires only a plausible allegation; evidence is needed only if contested. No antiremoval presumption applies in CAFA cases.

Contents:

State court action, number, date of service.
Citizenship of every party, properly alleged.
Class definition and basis for exceeding 100 members.
Minimal diversity identified as a specific diverse pair.
Plausible allegation of the amount, with the arithmetic sketched: claims pleaded → measure of recovery → class period → transaction volume → result.
Absence of any § 1332(d)(9) carve-out.
Timeliness stated.
Statement that consent is not required and that the forum defendant rule and one-year limit do not apply, per § 1453(b).

Kept out:

No declarations or financial exhibits — they belong in the opposition to remand.
No preemptive rebuttal of exceptions not yet raised.

Part 5 — Filing mechanics (where avoidable remands come from)

Filed in the district and division embracing the place where the state action is pending — § 1441(a).
All process, pleadings, and orders served attached — § 1446(a).
Written notice to all adverse parties.
Copy of the notice filed with the state court clerk, same day — § 1446(d). Until filed, the state court may keep acting.
Corporate disclosure statement and any local jurisdictional statement filed.
Plaintiff's 30-day § 1447(c) window calendared.
Answer or motion-to-dismiss schedule set.
Co-defendants notified before filing.

Part 6 — The amount in controversy record

Built from the claims, not from gross revenue.
Declarant has actual knowledge of the systems and records (finance/operations, not counsel).
Basis of knowledge stated; how the data was pulled described; query or report identified.
Every assumption labeled and grounded in the complaint (a 100% violation rate is defensible where a uniform practice is alleged; not where the practice is alleged to have occurred sometimes).
Included where the law allows: statutory damages, restitution as pleaded, punitives at a defensible ratio, fees (note the circuit split on future fees), injunctive relief at the circuit's valuation standard.
Excluded: interest and costs — § 1332(d)(2).
Anticipated attacks addressed in the declaration, not saved for reply: speculative assumptions, data broader than the class definition, overstated recovery measure.

Part 7 — The exceptions (plaintiff bears the burden)

Burden allocation stated in the first paragraph of the brief.

Local controversy — § 1332(d)(4)(A) — all four required:

Greater than two-thirds of class members are citizens of the filing State. (Citizenship = domicile, not residence, not purchase location.)
At least one defendant from whom significant relief is sought, whose conduct forms a significant basis for the claims, and who is a citizen of the filing State.
Principal injuries incurred in the filing State.
No other class action on the same or similar factual allegations against any defendant in the preceding 3 years.

Home state — § 1332(d)(4)(B):

Two-thirds or more of class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the filing State.
Who counts as a "primary defendant" contested where there are several.

Discretionary — § 1332(d)(3):

Between one-third and two-thirds of class members, plus primary defendants, are citizens of the filing State.
Six factors briefed — noting that factor three (pleading drafted to avoid federal jurisdiction) cuts against the movant.

Defense drafting note:

Citizenship element attacked with evidence, not argument — customer address analysis, out-of-state shipping, tourist and second-home purchasing, population mobility.

Part 8 — Jurisdictional discovery

Standard understood: granted where jurisdictional facts are disputed, the information is held by one party, and the record does not permit a reasoned decision.
Plaintiff's request targeted at inputs: the data extract, query definitions and filters, transaction and unique-purchaser counts within the class definition, basis for any assumed violation rate.
Merits discovery in jurisdictional clothing not requested (and resisted if it is).
Defendant's request where an exception is invoked: the basis for the two-thirds citizenship assertion and any survey, expert, or statistical support.
Defendant resists by scoping, not stonewalling — offering declaration inputs under a protective order.
Short, defined schedule with a firm supplemental briefing date proposed.
Record preserved — it becomes the jurisdictional record and may be revisited under § 1447(c).

Part 9 — Mass actions

Definition (§ 1332(d)(11)(B)(i)): monetary claims of 100 or more persons proposed to be tried jointly on common questions — jurisdiction only over plaintiffs whose claims individually exceed $75,000.
Exclusions checked (§ 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)): single event or occurrence in the filing State causing injuries there or in contiguous States; joinder on motion of a defendant; claims asserted on behalf of the general public under a State statute; consolidation or coordination solely for pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff-side structuring anticipated: multiple filings under 100, or coordination sought for pretrial purposes only.
Section 1332(d)(11)(C) noted: a removed mass action may not be transferred under the multidistrict litigation statute unless a majority of plaintiffs request it — factored into the removal decision.

Part 10 — The second removal window

Section 1446(b)(3) understood: a fresh 30 days from an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper first showing removability.
Incoming papers read with removability in mind — discovery responses, damages disclosures, demand letters, mediation statements.
Thirty days diarized from any paper that changes the arithmetic.
Noted again: no one-year outer limit for CAFA removals.

Part 11 — Appellate review of a remand order

Section 1453(c) application filed within 10 days of entry, if pursuing it.
Acceptance understood to be discretionary; where accepted, the court generally completes action within 60 days.
General bar in § 1447(d) understood, with its breadth confirmed in Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007).
Edge cases known: Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (remand of supplemental claims under § 1367(c) is reviewable) and BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021) (where § 1442 or § 1443 is invoked, the entire order is reviewable).
Decision made on the merits — legal error rather than factual, unresolved circuit question, case worth the delay.

Part 12 — After the case stays

Certification will be decided under Rule 23 with rigorous analysis and predominance.
Federal pleading standards apply — motion to dismiss filed promptly.
Expert gatekeeping under Rule 702 affects the damages model supporting predominance.
Rule 23(e) settlement approval, including the CAFA notice to federal and state officials with its waiting period before final approval — calendared.
MDL eligibility considered (except in a removed mass action, per § 1332(d)(11)(C)).
Residual risk noted: subject matter jurisdiction may be raised any time before judgment under § 1447(c); jurisdiction is assessed at removal, and Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) holds a defect cured before judgment does not require vacatur.

Part 13 — The plaintiff's checklist

Do not bother with:

Damages disclaimers (Standard Fire).
Pleading no amount (Dart Cherokee).
Suing only in-state defendants (minimal diversity needs one pair).

Consider:

A genuinely smaller case — one State, short period, specific product, limited remedy.
Staying under 100 class members where the facts permit.
Building the local controversy exception in from the start: a real in-state defendant with substantive allegations, and a class defined by citizenship with proof of domicile ready.
Checking the three-year prior-filing element before filing.
Using the § 1332(d)(9) carve-outs — and noting that "solely" means adding a consumer claim can remove the whole case from state court.
Structuring mass filings around § 1332(d)(11).
The counterclaim structure — after Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (2019) a third-party counterclaim defendant cannot remove.
Moving within 30 days on procedural grounds under § 1447(c), because procedural defects are waived if not raised.

Part 14 — Alternative routes and fee exposure

Alternatives to check before relying on CAFA:

Federal question — § 1331, § 1441(a), well-pleaded complaint rule; the narrow Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) category as calibrated by Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013).
Ordinary diversity — § 1332(a), still subject to the forum defendant rule in § 1441(b)(2), unanimity, and the one-year limit.
Supplemental jurisdiction — § 1367; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005).
§ 1442 (federal officers and those acting under them — reaches government contractors), § 1443, § 1452 (bankruptcy-related), § 1454 (patent, plant variety, copyright — removable by any party).
§ 1359 — improper or collusive joinder; the mirror of fraudulent joinder.

Fee exposure:

Section 1447(c) permits costs and attorney fees on remand where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis.
Removal grounded, documented, and reasoned — the same discipline that wins also prevents fees.
Notice of removal treated as a Rule 11 filing.
Client has approved the budget for a contested removal, opposition, jurisdictional discovery, and a possible § 1453(c) application.