CAFA Toolkit: Notices of Removal, Jurisdictional Evidence, and Exception Briefing

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

How to use this toolkit

Two principles run through it.

Plead plausibly; prove when contested. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) settled that a notice of removal needs a short and plain statement, not an evidentiary record. Front-loading evidence into the notice starts a fight the plaintiff has not yet picked.

The burden splits. The removing defendant establishes CAFA jurisdiction. The party seeking remand bears the burden on the exceptions. Say so in the first paragraph of every brief.

Tool 1 — Removal calendar

CAFA REMOVAL CALENDAR — [Case] — [Client]

** FORMAL SERVICE on this defendant ** ................. ______
   [Murphy Brothers: formal service, not a courtesy copy]
   Service on co-defendant [__] ........................ ______
   Service on co-defendant [__] ........................ ______
   [Each defendant has its own 30 days. Consent NOT required
    under § 1453(b).]

INTERNAL DEADLINE (service + 20) ....................... ______
** REMOVAL DEADLINE (service + 30) — § 1446(b)(1) ** .... ______

State court response due ............................... ______
   [ ] Extension obtained: new date ______

NOTE: the one-year limit of § 1446(c) does NOT apply
      (§ 1453(b) excepts CAFA removals).

AFTER REMOVAL
  Plaintiff's § 1447(c) procedural motion deadline
    (notice + 30) ....................................... ______
  Our answer / motion to dismiss due ................... ______

IF REMANDED
  ** § 1453(c) APPLICATION — 10 DAYS from entry ** ...... ______
  [Calendar this the DAY the order issues, before deciding
   whether to use it.]

SECOND WINDOW WATCH — § 1446(b)(3)
  Any amended pleading, motion, order, or OTHER PAPER first
  showing removability restarts 30 days.
  Papers logged: ______________________

Annotation. Two lines cause most of the malpractice in this area. The service line, because a defendant who counts from a courtesy copy removes late — Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) runs the clock from formal service. And the ten-day line, because § 1453(c) is the shortest meaningful deadline in class action practice and it runs while everyone is absorbing a loss.

Tool 2 — Complaint intake worksheet

COMPLAINT INTAKE — REMOVABILITY — [Case]

CLASS DEFINITION (read it three times)
  As pleaded: ______________________________________
  Geographic scope: ______  → citizenship / exceptions
  Temporal scope: ______    → transaction volume
  Product / conduct scope: ______ → which data to pull
  ** Defined by CITIZENS of a State, or PURCHASERS in a State? **
     [Purchasers = a gift to the defendant on local controversy]
  Estimated members: ______  ** ≥ 100? ** Y / N

RELIEF SOUGHT (from the prayer, not the damages allegations)
  [ ] Actual damages      [ ] Statutory damages — statute: ______
  [ ] Restitution         [ ] Punitive damages
  [ ] Injunctive relief   [ ] Attorneys' fees
  Damages disclaimer present?  Y / N
     [If Y → answered by Standard Fire in two sentences]

DEFENDANTS
  Name | Entity type | State of incorporation | PPB (nerve center)
  | Citizen of filing State? | Role in the allegations
  ** Any defendant a citizen of the filing State? ** Y / N
     [This single fact usually decides local controversy]

CARVE-OUT SCAN — § 1332(d)(9)
  Trigger words present: security ___ shareholder ___
  fiduciary duty ___ internal affairs ___ governance ___
  Is the action SOLELY about those, under the law of the State
  of incorporation?  Y / N

DRAFTED AROUND CAFA?
  [ ] Class narrowed to one State  [ ] Period shortened
  [ ] Conspicuously modest remedy
  [ ] Local co-defendant with thin allegations
  [ ] Damages disclaimer

PRIOR / PARALLEL FILINGS (last 3 years, same or similar
allegations, any defendant) — docket search run: ______
  Found: ______________________
  [Defeats the local controversy exception]

Annotation. The boxed citizenship-versus-purchasers question is the highest-value line on the form. A class defined as "all persons who purchased in Illinois" is not a class defined by Illinois citizenship, and the two-thirds element of § 1332(d)(4)(A) requires domicile. Plaintiffs who understand this define the class by citizenship; most do not.

Tool 3 — Removal decision memorandum

REMOVAL DECISION — [Case] — [Date] — PRIVILEGED

JURISDICTION AVAILABLE?
  CAFA: [ ] Yes  [ ] No — why: ______
  Alternatives: [ ] Federal question  [ ] Ordinary diversity
                [ ] § 1442  [ ] § 1452  [ ] § 1454  [ ] None

REASONS TO REMOVE
  [ ] Rule 23 certification law (usually decisive)
  [ ] Federal pleading standards
  [ ] Rule 702 gatekeeping at certification
  [ ] Judge and docket
  [ ] Rule 23(e) settlement approval durability

REASONS NOT TO
  [ ] Favorable state judge/venue — local counsel's view: ______
  [ ] ** MDL exposure ** — parallel filings in: ______
      Would transfer help or hurt us? ______
  [ ] Cost and delay: est. $______ , est. ______ months
  [ ] Weak jurisdictional record → remand + possible § 1447(c)
      fees + plaintiff learns our numbers
  [ ] State-law-specific advantages: ______

EXCEPTION EXPOSURE
  Local controversy: [ ] low [ ] real — why: ______
  Home state: [ ] low [ ] real
  Discretionary: [ ] low [ ] real

DECISION: [ ] Remove  [ ] Do not remove
Reasoning: ______________________________________
Client approved: ______  Budget approved: $______  Date: ______

Annotation. The MDL line is the one that gets skipped and that most often produces regret. Removal makes the case eligible for transfer to a forum you did not choose, before a judge you did not choose, with leadership you do not control. For a defendant facing filings in several States that can be the decisive factor — in either direction. Note also that a removed mass action cannot be transferred without a majority of plaintiffs requesting it, under § 1332(d)(11)(C).

Tool 4 — Notice of removal (annotated)

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant [__] removes the above action from the [State] Court of
[County] to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441,
1446, and 1453, and states:

I.   THE STATE COURT ACTION
     1. On [date], plaintiff filed [caption], No. [__].
     2. Defendant was served on [date].  A copy of all process,
        pleadings, and orders served is attached as Exhibit A.

II.  THIS IS A "CLASS ACTION"
     3. The action is brought under [Rule / statute], a State rule
        similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and is
        therefore a "class action" under 28 U.S.C.
        § 1332(d)(1)(B).

III. THE PROPOSED CLASS EXCEEDS 100 MEMBERS
     4. The class is defined as [__].  Based on [basis], the
        class comprises no fewer than [__] members.
        § 1332(d)(5)(B) is therefore not implicated.

IV.  MINIMAL DIVERSITY
     5. Plaintiff is a citizen of [State].
     6. Defendant is incorporated in [State] with its principal
        place of business — its nerve center — in [State].
     7. At least one member of the proposed class is a citizen of
        a State different from at least one defendant.
        § 1332(d)(2)(A) is satisfied.

V.   AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $5,000,000
     8. The claims of individual class members are aggregated.
        § 1332(d)(6).
     9. [PLAUSIBLE ALLEGATION with the arithmetic sketched:
        the claims pleaded → the measure of recovery → the class
        period → the transaction volume → the result.]
    10. Interest and costs are excluded.  Plaintiff's allegation
        that the amount does not exceed $5,000,000 does not
        defeat jurisdiction; a named plaintiff cannot bind absent
        class members before certification.  Standard Fire Ins.
        Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013).
    11. This Notice need contain only a plausible allegation of
        the amount in controversy.  Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
        Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014).  Defendant will submit
        evidence if the allegation is contested.

VI.  NO EXCLUSION APPLIES
    12. The primary defendants are not governmental entities.
        § 1332(d)(5)(A).
    13. This action does not solely involve claims described in
        § 1332(d)(9).

VII. REMOVAL IS PROPER AND TIMELY
    14. Filed within 30 days of service.  § 1446(b)(1).
    15. The consent of other defendants is not required, and the
        forum-defendant rule and the one-year limit of
        § 1446(c)(1) do not apply.  § 1453(b).
    16. This Court's district and division embrace the place
        where the action is pending.  § 1441(a).
    17. Written notice will be given to all adverse parties and a
        copy filed with the clerk of the state court.  § 1446(d).

Annotation. Paragraph 11 is deliberate: it tells the court and the plaintiff that the absence of declarations is a considered choice under Dart Cherokee, not an omission. Paragraph 10 disposes of the damages disclaimer in one sentence rather than inviting a brief about it. And paragraph 17 is a promise you must keep the same day — the § 1446(d) state court filing is what actually stops the state court, and defendants forget it.

Tool 5 — Citizenship allegation reference

ALLEGING CITIZENSHIP CORRECTLY

CORPORATION
  "[X] is a corporation organized under the laws of [State] with
   its principal place of business in [State]."
  → PPB is the NERVE CENTER: where high-level officers direct,
    control, and coordinate activities; normally the headquarters.
    Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010).
  ✗ NOT "headquartered in" without more, and NOT the State of
    most operations.

LLC / LP / PARTNERSHIP / TRUST (unincorporated)
  Citizenship = citizenship of EVERY member/partner/beneficiary.
  ** TRACE THROUGH EVERY TIER. **
  "[X] LLC's sole member is [Y] LLC, whose sole member is [Z],
   an individual domiciled in [State]. [X] LLC is therefore a
   citizen of [State]."
  ✗ NOT "organized under the laws of Delaware" — that states
    nothing about an LLC's citizenship.

NATURAL PERSON
  DOMICILE = physical presence + intent to remain indefinitely.
  ✗ NOT residence. ✗ NOT mailing address. ✗ NOT where a purchase
    was made.

CLASS MEMBERS (for the exceptions)
  The two-thirds tests in § 1332(d)(4) turn on CITIZENSHIP of
  class members, which means DOMICILE.
  A class of "purchasers in [State]" is not a class of citizens.

FOREIGN PARTIES
  Check § 1332(d)(2)(B) and (C) configurations.

Annotation. The unincorporated-entity rule is the single most common defect in removal papers, and it is fatal to nothing except the removing party's credibility — until a court raises it sua sponte in month eight. Trace the tiers, and if you cannot establish a member's citizenship, say what you know and what you have done to find out.

Tool 6 — Amount in controversy worksheet

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY — [Case]

STEP 1 — WHAT IS IN ISSUE (from the prayer, assuming liability)
  Theory | Statutory basis | Measure of recovery | Per-unit or
  per-claimant value
  ------ | --------------- | ------------------- | -------------

STEP 2 — THE POPULATION (from the CLASS DEFINITION, not from
total sales)
  Class definition: ______________________
  Data source: ______________  Query/report: ______________
  Class-period transactions: ______
  Unique purchasers: ______
  Units: ______   Revenue: $______

STEP 3 — ASSUMPTIONS (label each; ground each in the complaint)
  Assumption | Value | ** What in the complaint supports it **
  ---------- | ----- | -------------------------------------
  Violation rate | ___% | [uniform practice alleged at ¶ __?]
  Take-up / affected share | ___% | [¶ __]
  Per-transaction measure | $___ | [¶ __]
  [A 100% violation rate is defensible where a UNIFORM practice
   is alleged; not where the practice occurred "sometimes."]

STEP 4 — THE ARITHMETIC
  Statutory damages: ____ claims × $____ =        $__________
  Restitution:        ____ × $____ =              $__________
  Actual damages:                                 $__________
  Punitive (ratio ____, if recoverable):          $__________
  Injunctive relief (valuation standard: ______): $__________
  Attorneys' fees (circuit rule on FUTURE fees: __): $________
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  TOTAL                                           $__________
  ** EXCLUDE interest and costs — § 1332(d)(2) **

STEP 5 — STRESS TEST
  If the violation rate were ___%, total = $______  Still >$5M?
  If the class were limited to ______, total = $______  >$5M?
  Anticipated attack: ______________  Our answer: ______________

Annotation. Step 5 is what separates a showing that survives from one that does not. Plaintiffs attack the assumptions, not the data, and a defendant who has already shown the number holds up at a 40% violation rate has removed the attack before it is made. Note also that courts have grown notably less tolerant of unsupported assumptions, particularly in wage and hour cases — the third column of Step 3 is not optional.

Tool 7 — Jurisdictional declaration

DECLARATION OF [NAME] IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO REMAND

I, [Name], declare:

1.  I am [title] at [Defendant].  I have held this position since
    [date].  In that role I am responsible for [scope], and I have
    personal knowledge of the matters stated here.

2.  ** SYSTEMS AND RECORDS. **  [Defendant] maintains [describe
    the systems] in the ordinary course of business.  These
    records are created contemporaneously with the transactions
    they record and are relied upon by [Defendant] in operating
    its business.

3.  ** HOW THE DATA WAS OBTAINED. **  At my direction, [role]
    ran a query of [system] on [date] to identify [describe
    precisely: e.g., all transactions in [State] between [dates]
    involving products bearing [characteristic]].  The query
    applied the following filters: [list].  I reviewed the output.

4.  RESULTS.  The query returned:
      Transactions: ______   Unique purchasers: ______
      Units: ______          Gross revenue: $______
    [Table by year if useful.]

5.  [Any additional facts: average price, product categories,
    channel mix, out-of-state purchaser indicators.]

6.  I have not been asked to and do not express any opinion on
    the merits of plaintiff's claims.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.  Executed on [date] at [place].

                                        ______________________

Annotation. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are the ones plaintiffs attack and the ones most declarations omit. "Based on my review of company records, sales were approximately $X" states no basis of knowledge, identifies no system, and describes no method — and a court asked to find a jurisdictional fact by a preponderance has been given nothing to weigh. Paragraph 6 keeps the declarant off the merits, which is where cross-examination lives if there is ever an evidentiary hearing.

Tool 8 — Remand opposition outline

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REMAND

I.   INTRODUCTION
     ** The burden allocation, in the first paragraph: **
     Defendant established CAFA jurisdiction in its Notice.  The
     EXCEPTIONS are affirmative, and PLAINTIFF bears the burden
     of proving them.  Plaintiff has not carried it.

II.  BACKGROUND
     The complaint · the class definition · the relief sought ·
     the removal

III. CAFA JURISDICTION IS ESTABLISHED
     A. Class action under § 1332(d)(1)(B)
     B. 100+ members
     C. Minimal diversity — the specific diverse pair
     D. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
        1. Legal standard: plausible allegation; evidence only if
           contested (Dart Cherokee); preponderance if contested
        2. The evidence [declaration + worksheet]
        3. Assumptions grounded in the complaint, ¶¶ __
        4. Plaintiff's disclaimer is ineffective (Standard Fire)
        5. Stress test: the threshold is met even at ___%

IV.  NO EXCEPTION APPLIES
     A. Plaintiff bears the burden [authority]
     B. LOCAL CONTROVERSY — § 1332(d)(4)(A) — fails on:
        1. Two-thirds CITIZENSHIP — domicile, not residence, not
           purchase location; plaintiff offers no evidence
        2. No in-State defendant from whom significant relief is
           sought whose conduct forms a significant basis
        3. Principal injuries
        4. Prior class action within 3 years [if applicable]
     C. HOME STATE — § 1332(d)(4)(B) — two-thirds and primary
        defendants
     D. DISCRETIONARY — § 1332(d)(3) — factors, noting that
        factor three cuts against plaintiff

V.   [IF SOUGHT] JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY IS UNNECESSARY /
     SHOULD BE LIMITED TO [scope]

VI.  NO FEES ARE WARRANTED — removal had an objectively
     reasonable basis, § 1447(c)

VII. CONCLUSION

Annotation. Section I is not throat-clearing. In practice a meaningful share of these motions turn on who has to prove what, and a court that reads the burden allocation in the first paragraph reads the rest of the brief through it. Section IV.B.1 should lead with citizenship in nearly every case, because it is the element plaintiffs most often assert and least often prove.

Tool 9 — Local controversy briefing framework

LOCAL CONTROVERSY — § 1332(d)(4)(A) — ELEMENT BY ELEMENT

ELEMENT 1: > TWO-THIRDS of class members are CITIZENS of the
           filing State
  Plaintiff's evidence: ______________________
  ** Citizenship = domicile (presence + intent to remain) **
  Our attack:
    [ ] Class defined by purchase location, not citizenship
    [ ] Online / mail-order sales to out-of-State purchasers: ___%
    [ ] Tourist / visitor / second-home purchasing: evidence ____
    [ ] Population mobility data
    [ ] Shipping addresses outside the State: ___%
    [ ] Plaintiff offers only inference from the class definition
  Our evidence: ______________________

ELEMENT 2: An in-State defendant FROM WHOM SIGNIFICANT RELIEF IS
           SOUGHT and WHOSE CONDUCT FORMS A SIGNIFICANT BASIS
  Is any defendant a citizen of the filing State?  Y / N
    [If N — the exception fails here, full stop]
  If Y:
    [ ] Is significant relief actually sought from it, or is it
        nominal / judgment-proof / a pass-through?
    [ ] Does its conduct form a significant basis for the claims
        of the class AS A WHOLE, measured against all defendants'
        conduct collectively?
    [ ] Allegations against it: how many paragraphs, how specific?

ELEMENT 3: PRINCIPAL INJURIES incurred in the filing State
  [ ] Nationwide conduct?  Injuries elsewhere?

ELEMENT 4: NO other class action, same or similar factual
           allegations, against ANY defendant, in the preceding
           3 YEARS
  Docket search: ______________  Cases found: ______________
  [ ] A prior similar filing DEFEATS the exception entirely

Annotation. Element 2's first line disposes of a large fraction of these motions: if no defendant is a citizen of the filing State, the exception cannot apply and the rest of the analysis is unnecessary. Element 4 rewards preparation rather than argument — run the docket search on your own client before the motion is filed, and you will sometimes find the case that ends it.

Tool 10 — Jurisdictional discovery requests

IF WE ARE THE PLAINTIFF — TARGET THE INPUTS, NOT THE MERITS

 1. The data extract underlying the [__] Declaration, in native
    format.
 2. The query, report definition, or filters used to produce it.
 3. Documents sufficient to show the number of transactions and
    unique purchasers within the class definition during the
    class period.
 4. Documents sufficient to show the basis for the assumed
    [violation rate / take-up rate / per-transaction measure].
 5. Documents sufficient to show the [State] share of the
    relevant transactions.
 6. A 30(b)(6) deposition limited to topics 1-5, [2] hours.

 ✗ DO NOT ASK FOR: marketing materials, internal communications
   about the practice, complaint files, or anything that reads as
   merits discovery. It will be denied and it costs credibility.

IF WE ARE THE DEFENDANT AND AN EXCEPTION IS INVOKED

 1. All documents supporting the contention that more than
    two-thirds of class members are CITIZENS of [State].
 2. Any survey, expert analysis, or statistical study of class
    member domicile.
 3. Documents sufficient to show the basis for naming [in-State
    defendant] and the relief sought from it.
 4. Documents concerning any other class action asserting the
    same or similar factual allegations filed in the last 3 years.

RESISTING (as defendant)
  Offer: the declaration inputs, under a protective order.
  Oppose: everything reading as merits discovery.
  ** Do not stonewall a narrow, well-framed request on a
     genuinely contested point — courts resolve the ambiguity
     against the party withholding. **

SCHEDULE
  Propose: ___ days of discovery, supplemental briefs due ______,
  hearing ______.  [Open-ended jurisdictional discovery costs
  2-4 months.]

Annotation. The prohibition on the plaintiff's side is the useful part. Jurisdictional discovery requests that reach for the merits are denied as a matter of course, and the denial usually sweeps in the two or three requests that were legitimate. Ask for the inputs, get them, and use them.

Tool 11 — Mass action analysis worksheet

MASS ACTION — § 1332(d)(11)

DEFINITION — § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i)
  [ ] Monetary relief claims of ** 100 or more persons **
      Count: ______
  [ ] ** Proposed to be tried JOINTLY ** on common questions
      Where is that proposed?  [pleading / motion / CMC
      statement]: ______________________
  [ ] Jurisdiction only over plaintiffs whose claims
      INDIVIDUALLY exceed $75,000
      How many qualify: ______

EXCLUSIONS — § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii) — ANY ONE DEFEATS REMOVAL
  [ ] All claims arise from an EVENT OR OCCURRENCE in the filing
      State causing injuries there or in contiguous States
  [ ] Claims joined on ** motion of a DEFENDANT **
  [ ] Claims asserted on behalf of the GENERAL PUBLIC under a
      State statute specifically authorizing it
  [ ] Claims consolidated or coordinated ** SOLELY FOR PRETRIAL
      PROCEEDINGS **

PLAINTIFF-SIDE STRUCTURING TO ANTICIPATE
  [ ] Multiple filings, each under 100 plaintiffs
  [ ] Coordination requested for pretrial purposes only
  [ ] Framing as a general-public action

** IF REMOVED: § 1332(d)(11)(C) — NO MDL TRANSFER unless a
   MAJORITY OF PLAINTIFFS request it. **
  Does that help or hurt us?  ______________________
  [Factor this into the removal decision, not after]

Annotation. The last box is the one that changes strategy. In ordinary class practice, removal opens the door to consolidation; in a removed mass action it closes it. A defendant who wanted the case consolidated with a favorable MDL and removes it as a mass action has achieved the opposite of its objective.

Tool 12 — Section 1453(c) petition outline

PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL — 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)

** FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ENTRY OF THE REMAND ORDER **

I.   JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
     Order entered [date]; petition filed [date], within 10 days.
     § 1453(c)(1).  This is a class action removed under CAFA.

II.  QUESTION PRESENTED
     [One sentence, legal, not factual.]

III. WHY THE COURT SHOULD ACCEPT
     A. The order rests on a LEGAL error, not a factual finding
        [factual findings are far less attractive on discretionary
         review]
     B. The question is unresolved in this Circuit / the districts
        are divided
     C. The question is recurring and important to CAFA practice
     D. The case is substantial and the error is outcome-
        determinative

IV.  STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

V.   ARGUMENT — why the remand order is wrong

VI.  CONCLUSION

NOTE ON TIMING: if accepted, the court of appeals must generally
complete all action within 60 days of acceptance, subject to
extension.  § 1453(c)(2)-(3).

CONTEXT: § 1447(d) generally bars review of remand orders
(Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224
(2007)), with the mapped exceptions of Carlsbad Technology, Inc.
v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) and BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and
City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021).  § 1453(c) is a
separate, discretionary route specific to CAFA class actions.

Annotation. Section III.A is where these petitions are won and lost. Courts of appeals accept discretionary CAFA appeals to resolve legal questions, not to re-weigh a district court's assessment of a declaration. A petition that frames a factual dispute as an important question of law is transparent, and it is declined.