Removing or Remanding a Class Action Under CAFA: A Practical Guide

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

Who this is for

Counsel who has just been served with a putative class action in state court and has thirty days, or plaintiff's counsel who has just been removed and has thirty days of their own.

Our example runs both ways. Corriveau Nutrition is a Delaware-incorporated supplement manufacturer headquartered in Minneapolis, sued in Illinois state court over label claims on behalf of "all Illinois purchasers" over a five-year period. Its general counsel is Adaeze Halvorsen-Ruiz. Plaintiff's counsel is a Chicago firm that has filed six similar cases.

The organizing fact: removal is a thirty-day project done on incomplete information, and the work that determines the outcome is done in the first week.

Step 1 — Build the calendar on day one

Date of service on this defendant (FORMAL SERVICE) ......... ____
  [Murphy Brothers: the clock runs from formal service of
   process, not from receipt of a courtesy copy.]
** REMOVAL DEADLINE: service + 30 days ** .................. ____
Internal deadline: service + 20 days ....................... ____
Other defendants served? dates ............................. ____
  [Consent is NOT required under § 1453(b), but know who is in.]
State court response deadline (may need an extension) ...... ____
If removed — plaintiff's § 1447(c) motion deadline ......... ____
If remanded — ** § 1453(c) application: 10 DAYS ** ......... ____

Two notes on this calendar. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) fixes the trigger at formal service, so a defendant who received an unserved courtesy copy gets the full period from service. And the one-year outer limit in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) does not apply to CAFA removals, because § 1453(b) excepts them.

Get a state court extension immediately so that the response deadline does not force a rushed decision.

Step 2 — Run the intake analysis

Answer six questions in the first week.

1. Is it a "class action" under CAFA? Section 1332(d)(1)(B) reaches an action filed under Rule 23 or similar State statute or rule authorizing representative litigation. State analogues generally qualify; representative actions under statutes that authorize suit on behalf of others without class machinery may not. Characterize it before relying on it.

2. Are there 100 or more class members? Below that, § 1332(d)(5)(B) takes the case out of CAFA.

3. Is there minimal diversity? Section 1332(d)(2) requires only that any class member be a citizen of a different State from any defendant. Allege citizenship properly: State of incorporation and principal place of business for corporations, with the principal place of business being the nerve center under Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010); every member's citizenship, traced through every tier, for unincorporated entities.

4. Does the aggregate amount in controversy exceed $5,000,000? Aggregate under § 1332(d)(6). Do the arithmetic now, from the claims pleaded — you will need it if contested.

5. Do the carve-outs apply? Section 1332(d)(9) excludes actions solely involving covered securities, internal affairs or governance claims arising under the law of the State of incorporation, or claims relating to rights and duties created by a security. Note "solely".

6. Are the primary defendants governmental? Section 1332(d)(5)(A) takes those out.

Then assess exception exposure — local controversy and home state — because it changes how you draft the notice and what evidence you should start gathering.

Corriveau's answers: class action under the Illinois analogue, plainly over 100 members, minimal diversity (Delaware/Minnesota defendant, Illinois class), aggregate amount well over $5,000,000, no carve-out, no governmental defendant. Local controversy exposure: low, because the only defendant was Corriveau itself, a non-Illinois citizen. That single fact decided the case.

Step 3 — Draft the notice: plead plausibly, do not prove

After Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014), the notice needs only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold. Evidence is required only when the plaintiff contests or the court questions the allegation. The Court read § 1446(a) — "a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" — as tracking Rule 8(a), and rejected any antiremoval presumption in CAFA cases.

What goes in:

The state court action, its number, and the date of service.
Citizenship of each party, properly alleged.
The class definition as pleaded, and the basis for concluding it exceeds 100 members.
Minimal diversity, identified as a specific diverse pair.
A plausible allegation of the amount in controversy, with the arithmetic sketched: the claims pleaded, the measure of recovery, the class period, the transaction volume, the result.
The absence of any carve-out.
A statement that removal is timely.
A statement that consent of other defendants is not required under § 1453(b), and that the forum defendant rule and the one-year limit do not apply.

What stays out: declarations, exhibits of financial data, and a preemptive rebuttal of exceptions the plaintiff has not yet raised. Save it for the opposition brief, where it belongs and where you will have had time to prepare it properly.

And attach what the statute requires: § 1446(a) requires a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon the removing defendant.

Step 4 — Execute the mechanics without an unforced error

File in the district and division embracing the place where the state action is pending — § 1441(a). Not where you are headquartered.
Attach all process, pleadings, and orders served.
Give written notice to all adverse parties.
File a copy of the notice with the clerk of the state court — § 1446(d). This effects the removal and stops the state court. Defendants forget it, and until it is filed the state court may keep acting.
Calendar the plaintiff's 30-day window under § 1447(c).
File the corporate disclosure statement and any local-rule jurisdictional statement.
Consider whether to answer or move to dismiss, and on what schedule.

Step 5 — Build the amount in controversy record, if contested

When the plaintiff moves to remand on the amount, the case is decided on a declaration and a spreadsheet. Build them properly.

Start from the claims, not from revenue. The amount in controversy is what the complaint puts in issue, assuming liability. Walk the arithmetic explicitly: this claim, this measure of recovery, this class definition, this period, this transaction count, this result. A declaration reciting gross revenue for a product line proves only that you are a large company.

Choose the right declarant. Someone with actual knowledge of the systems and records — finance or operations, not counsel. State the basis of knowledge, describe how the data was pulled, and identify the query or report. "Based on my review of company records" without more is vulnerable.

Label your assumptions and ground them in the complaint. Most showings require an assumption — a violation rate, a per-transaction measure, a take-up rate. A defendant may generally assume a 100% violation rate where the complaint alleges a uniform practice; not where it alleges a practice that occurred sometimes. Courts have become notably less tolerant of unsupported assumptions, particularly in wage and hour cases. Say what in the complaint supports each one.

Include what the law allows. Statutory damages where provided. Restitution as the complaint measures it. Punitive damages where recoverable, at a defensible ratio. Attorneys' fees where the statute or contract provides them — noting the circuit split on whether future fees count. Injunctive relief valued by your circuit's standard. Exclude interest and costs, which § 1332(d)(2) excludes.

Answer Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) preemptively if the complaint contains a damages disclaimer: a named plaintiff cannot bind absent class members before certification, so the stipulation does not reduce the amount in controversy.

Anticipate the attack. It will be that the assumptions are speculative, that the data covers a broader population than the class definition, and that the recovery measure is overstated. Address each in the declaration rather than saving it for reply.

Jurisdictional discovery. Either side may seek it, and courts grant it where the record is genuinely inadequate. A defendant should generally resist broad merits-flavored discovery dressed as jurisdictional, and a plaintiff should target it narrowly — at the data underlying the declaration, not at the merits.

Step 6 — Brief the exceptions, and keep the burden where it belongs

State the allocation in the first paragraph. CAFA jurisdiction is established by the removing defendant; the exceptions are affirmative and the party seeking remand bears the burden. That framing decides a meaningful number of these motions.

Local controversy — § 1332(d)(4)(A)

Four elements, all required:

Greater than two-thirds of class members are citizens of the filing State.
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 were incurred in the filing State.
No other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any defendant in the preceding 3 years.

Attack element 1 first. Citizenship requires domicile — presence plus intent to remain — not residence and not purchase location. A class defined by where purchases occurred is not a class defined by citizenship. Plaintiffs frequently rely on inference from the class definition; courts differ on how much inference is permissible, and the better-litigated cases involve survey or statistical proof.

Attack element 2 on substance. Naming a local defendant is not enough; its conduct must form a significant basis for the claims of the class as a whole, assessed against all defendants' conduct collectively.

Research element 4 before the motion. A copycat filing in the preceding three years defeats the exception, and defendants who track filings against themselves have the answer already.

Home state — § 1332(d)(4)(B)

Two-thirds or more of class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the filing State. Simpler and narrower. Contest who the "primary defendants" are where there are several.

Discretionary — § 1332(d)(3)

Available where more than one-third but less than two-thirds of class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the filing State. Six factors, weighed in the interests of justice. These motions succeed less often, and factor three — whether the pleading was drafted to avoid federal jurisdiction — cuts against the movant.

Practical drafting note for defendants: brief the citizenship element with evidence, not argument. A declaration analyzing customer addresses, out-of-state shipping, tourist and second-home purchasing, or population mobility data is what defeats the two-thirds showing.

Step 7 — The ten-day appeal under section 1453(c)

Calendar it the day the order issues, before you decide whether to use it.

Section 1453(c) permits a court of appeals to accept an appeal from an order granting or denying remand in a CAFA class action if application is made not more than 10 days after entry of the order. Acceptance is discretionary. Where accepted, the court must generally complete all action within 60 days, subject to extension.

This is a meaningful exception to the general rule of § 1447(d) that a remand order is not reviewable — the bar confirmed in its breadth by Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007), and mapped at its edges by Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (a remand of supplemental claims after declining jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is not a § 1447(c) remand and is reviewable) and BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021) (where review is available because removal invoked § 1442 or § 1443, the court of appeals may review the entire order).

Decide on the merits of the appeal, not on reflex. Ask whether the district court's error is legal rather than factual, whether the question is one the circuit has not resolved, and whether the case is worth the delay. A discretionary petition that the court declines costs money and signals nothing good.

Step 8 — Mass actions

If the case involves 100 or more individual plaintiffs rather than a class, run the mass action analysis in § 1332(d)(11).

The definition: monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the claims involve common questions — with jurisdiction only over those plaintiffs whose claims individually exceed $75,000.

The exclusions matter more than the definition. Not a mass action where: all claims arise from an event or occurrence in the filing State allegedly causing injuries there or in contiguous States; claims are joined on motion of a defendant; claims are asserted on behalf of the general public under a State statute authorizing it; or claims have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings.

The practical consequence is that plaintiffs structure around the definition — multiple filings below 100, or coordination requested for pretrial purposes only — and the litigated question becomes when a proposal for coordination amounts to a proposal for joint trial.

And note § 1332(d)(11)(C): a removed mass action may not be transferred under the multidistrict litigation statute unless a majority of plaintiffs request it. That materially changes the strategic calculus in mass tort filings, and defendants should factor it in before removing.

Step 9 — Watch the second removal window

A case that was not removable at service may become removable later.

Section 1446(b)(3) provides a fresh 30 days from receipt of an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is or has become removable.

In CAFA practice this is the provision that saves a defendant whose initial assessment was that the case fell below $5,000,000. The triggering paper is often a discovery response quantifying the claim, a damages disclosure, a demand letter, or a mediation statement.

Two disciplines. Read incoming papers with removability in mind, and diarize thirty days from any paper that changes the arithmetic. And remember that § 1453(b) removes the one-year outer limit, so a late-developing CAFA case remains removable when an ordinary diversity case would not be.

Step 10 — After the case stays

Winning removal changes the rules the case runs on, and the consequences should have been priced into the decision.

Certification under Rule 23, with the rigorous-analysis and predominance standards — usually the reason removal was worth doing.

Federal pleading standards, which a complaint drafted for a notice-pleading state may not survive. File the motion promptly.

Expert gatekeeping under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which matters for the damages model supporting predominance.

Settlement approval under Rule 23(e), including the CAFA notice to federal and state officials, which carries its own waiting period before final approval. Missing it delays approval.

Coordination, now available through the multidistrict litigation process — except in a removed mass action, per § 1332(d)(11)(C).

And residual jurisdictional risk. Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time before judgment under § 1447(c). The prevailing view is that CAFA jurisdiction is assessed at removal and post-removal events do not divest it, and Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996) holds that a defect cured before judgment does not require vacatur — but the point is worth knowing before a class definition is narrowed.

Step 11 — The plaintiff's playbook

What does not work. Damages disclaimers, after Standard Fire. Pleading no amount, after Dart Cherokee. Suing only in-state defendants, because § 1332(d)(2) needs one diverse pair anywhere.

What can work.

Bring a genuinely smaller case — one State, a short period, a specific product, a limited remedy. Not a pleading device; a decision with real consequences for fees and leverage.

Stay under 100 class members where the facts permit, taking the case outside § 1332(d)(5)(B).

Build the local controversy exception in from the start. Name a real in-state defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose conduct forms a significant basis for the claims — and be prepared to prove it. Then define the class so the two-thirds citizenship element is provable, with survey or statistical evidence of domicile ready.

Check the three-year prior-filing element before filing, because a copycat complaint destroys the exception for everyone.

Use the § 1332(d)(9) carve-outs deliberately — and note that "solely" means adding a consumer claim to a fiduciary duty complaint can remove the whole case from state court.

Structure mass filings around § 1332(d)(11), including coordination requested solely for pretrial purposes.

Consider the counterclaim structure, since after Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435 (2019) a third-party counterclaim defendant cannot remove at all.

And move within 30 days on procedural grounds under § 1447(c), because a procedural defect not raised is waived — while a genuine absence of subject matter jurisdiction survives.

Step 5A — Working with the business to build the record

The jurisdictional record is built from company data, and the people who hold it do not work for you.

Ask on day one. The single most common cause of a rushed removal is a data request that goes out in week three. Send it the day of service, before the legal analysis is finished, because you already know approximately what you will need: transactions, units, and revenue within the pleaded class definition and period.

Ask precisely. "Sales data for the class period" produces a spreadsheet nobody can authenticate. Specify the population by the class definition's own terms — this State, these dates, these products or this practice — and ask for the query or report definition alongside the output.

Identify the declarant early, and pick for knowledge rather than seniority. The right person is the one who can say how the system works and how the number was produced, not the one with the most impressive title. A senior executive reading a number someone else pulled makes a weak declaration.

Explain what the declaration is for. Business people asked to sign something in a lawsuit become cautious, slowly. Tell them plainly: this establishes how large the case is for jurisdictional purposes, it says nothing about liability, and it will be reviewed by opposing counsel.

Keep the declarant off the merits. Include an express statement that no opinion on the merits is offered. It protects the witness and narrows any deposition that follows.

Preserve the underlying data. The extract becomes part of the jurisdictional record and may be sought in discovery. Save it, with the query, in a form that can be produced.

And build the standing report. Companies that face repeat class filings should maintain a quarterly state-by-state, product-line transaction summary. The first case takes nine days to assemble; every case after that takes an hour.

Step 6A — Reading a complaint for removability

Most of the work in Step 2 is reading, and reading well is a method.

Read the class definition first, three times. Its geographic scope tells you about citizenship and the exceptions. Its temporal scope tells you about the transaction volume behind the amount. Its product or conduct scope tells you what data to pull. And a definition drafted in terms of purchasers in a State rather than citizens of a State is a gift to the defendant on the local controversy element.

Then read the prayer for relief, not the damages allegations. What the plaintiff asks for is what is in controversy: restitution, statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, fees. Each has a value and a method of valuation.

Count the causes of action and check each for a statutory damages provision. In consumer cases the statutory damages claim frequently exceeds every other theory combined and is the cleanest path to $5,000,000.

Look for the disclaimer, and remember it is answered by Standard Fire.

Identify every defendant and characterize each. Citizenship, role, and — critically — whether any is a citizen of the filing State, because that single fact usually decides the local controversy analysis.

Check for the carve-out trigger words: security, shareholder, fiduciary duty, internal affairs, governance. If the case is solely about those and arises under the law of the State of incorporation, § 1332(d)(9) takes it out.

Note whether the pleading looks drafted around CAFA. A class narrowed to one State, a period shortened for no apparent reason, a conspicuously modest remedy, or a locally incorporated co-defendant added without substantive allegations — these tell you the plaintiff has thought about jurisdiction, and they tell you where the fight will be.

Finally, search for the case. Prior or parallel filings against your client asserting similar allegations in the preceding three years defeat the local controversy exception under § 1332(d)(4)(A), and finding them is a docket search, not a legal argument.

Step 7A — Fees, sanctions, and the cost of getting it wrong

Removal carries a downside that defendants rarely price in and plaintiffs rarely pursue.

Section 1447(c) permits a fee award. An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. The governing standard is objective reasonableness: fees are generally appropriate only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal, and generally inappropriate where it had one, even if the removal ultimately failed.

What that means in CAFA practice. A removal on a contested but plausible amount-in-controversy theory almost never draws fees. A removal that ignores an obvious carve-out under § 1332(d)(9), or that is plainly untimely, or that rests on an amount computed from revenue with no connection to the claims pleaded, is where the exposure lives.

For a plaintiff considering the request: ask only where the removal was genuinely unreasonable. A fee request attached reflexively to every remand motion is discounted, and it makes the substantive brief look weaker.

For a defendant: the practical protection is the same as the practical protection for winning — do the arithmetic before filing, ground the assumptions in the complaint, and check the carve-outs and the calendar. A removal that is documented and reasoned is not an unreasonable one even when it loses.

Two related exposures. A notice of removal is a filing subject to Rule 11, so factual contentions in it must have evidentiary support or be likely to after investigation — which is a reason to plead the amount plausibly and specifically rather than gesturing at it. And a removal that halts state court proceedings improperly can create its own problems if the state court has already acted, which is why the § 1446(d) filing with the state clerk should go out the same day.

Budget honestly for the client. A contested CAFA removal with a declaration, an opposition, jurisdictional discovery, and a possible § 1453(c) application is a six-figure exercise before the merits begin. It is usually worth it for the certification law alone — but the client should approve the number, not discover it.

Step 8A — Jurisdictional discovery, requested and resisted

When the amount in controversy or an exception is genuinely contested, one side or both will ask for discovery. It is granted more often than defendants expect and less often than plaintiffs hope.

When a court will allow it. Where the jurisdictional facts are disputed, the information is in the possession of one party, and the record as it stands does not permit a reasoned decision. That is a real standard, not a formality.

What a plaintiff should ask for. Narrowly targeted material behind the defendant's declaration: the underlying data extract, the definitions and filters used in the query, the number of transactions and unique purchasers within the class definition, and the basis for any assumed violation rate. Ask for the inputs, not the merits.

What a plaintiff should not ask for. Merits discovery in jurisdictional clothing — marketing materials, internal communications about the practice, or complaint files. That request will be denied and it costs credibility on the request that mattered.

What a defendant should ask for, when the exception is invoked: the basis for the plaintiff's assertion that two-thirds of the class are citizens of the filing State, and any survey, expert, or statistical work supporting it. A plaintiff who has invoked the local controversy exception without evidence on the citizenship element is a plaintiff whose motion should be denied, and a targeted request makes that clear.

How a defendant should resist. Not by refusing, but by scoping: offer the specific data supporting the declaration, subject to a protective order, and oppose the rest as merits discovery. A defendant that stonewalls a narrow, well-framed request on a genuinely contested point often finds the court resolving the ambiguity against it.

Manage the schedule. Jurisdictional discovery suspends the remand motion and can add two to four months. Both sides should propose a short, defined schedule with a firm supplemental briefing date rather than leaving it open.

And preserve the record. Whatever is produced becomes the jurisdictional record, and it can be revisited later if subject matter jurisdiction is challenged again under § 1447(c).

Step 9A — Deciding whether to remove at all

Removal is reflexive in class action defense and should not be. Run the analysis.

Reasons to remove.

Certification law. Rule 23 as applied in federal court, with the rigorous-analysis requirement and a developed predominance jurisprudence, is generally more favorable to defendants than many state analogues. This is the dominant reason and usually decides it.

Pleading standards. A complaint drafted for a notice-pleading state may not survive a federal motion to dismiss.

Expert gatekeeping. Rule 702 applied at the certification stage constrains the damages model that predominance depends on.

The judge and the docket. A federal judge with a manageable docket, life tenure, and no election exposure is a different decision-maker from an elected state judge in a plaintiff-favorable venue.

Settlement approval. Rule 23(e) approval, with its notice machinery, produces a more durable release.

Reasons not to remove.

A favorable state judge or venue, which does exist and which local counsel will know about.

MDL exposure. Removal makes the case eligible for transfer and consolidation with cases in 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 this can be the decisive factor in either direction.

Cost and delay. A contested removal plus a possible § 1453(c) detour costs six figures and several months in a case you may want to settle quickly.

A weak jurisdictional record. Removing on a thin amount-in-controversy showing and losing produces a remand, a possible fee award under § 1447(c) where removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis, and a plaintiff who now knows your numbers.

State-law-specific advantages occasionally favor state court — a shorter limitations period applied differently, a state procedural device, or an appellate route.

Make the call explicitly, with the client, in the first week — and write down the reasoning. Six months later, when the case has gone somewhere unexpected, the memorandum explaining why removal was or was not sought is worth having.

Step 10A — Multiple defendants, related cases, and the coordination problem

CAFA removals rarely happen in isolation. Several structural situations recur.

Multiple defendants, one removing. Section 1453(b) permits removal by any defendant without the consent of all defendants — a significant departure from ordinary removal practice. Use it, but tell the others: a co-defendant surprised by a removal it would have supported is a co-defendant whose cooperation on everything else becomes harder. And confirm that a non-removing co-defendant does not intend to move for remand on grounds you have not analyzed.

A non-diverse defendant joined without a colorable claim. Fraudulent joinder is available in CAFA cases as elsewhere, though it matters less because minimal diversity is easy to satisfy. Where it matters is the local controversy exception: a plaintiff who names a local defendant to build element two of § 1332(d)(4)(A) has invited an inquiry into whether significant relief is actually sought from that defendant and whether its conduct forms a significant basis for the claims. Section 1359 supplies the statutory complement, denying jurisdiction where a party is improperly or collusively joined to invoke it.

Parallel state and federal actions. Overlapping putative classes filed in different courts are the norm in consumer litigation. Removal changes the coordination picture: once in federal court, the case becomes eligible for transfer and consolidation through the multidistrict litigation process, which may be an advantage or a serious disadvantage depending on where the other cases are and who leads them. Assess this before removing, not after — and remember that a removed mass action cannot be transferred without a majority of plaintiffs requesting it, under § 1332(d)(11)(C).

Serial filings by the same firm. A defendant facing a campaign should track every filing against it, because § 1332(d)(4)(A)'s three-year prior-filing element turns on exactly that history — and the plaintiff invoking the local controversy exception may not know about a similar case filed against the defendant in another State.

Staggered service. Where defendants are served on different dates, each has its own thirty-day window under § 1446(b) as measured from its own formal service under Murphy Brothers, and a later-served defendant may remove even after an earlier-served defendant's window has closed. Confirm the service dates rather than assuming a single deadline.

Step 11A — How Corriveau's case actually ran

Day 1. Service. Halvorsen-Ruiz built the calendar, obtained a thirty-day state court extension, and asked finance for Illinois transaction data for the class period. That third step is the one companies forget, and it is the one with the longest lead time.

Days 2–6. Intake analysis. Class action under the Illinois analogue. Well over 100 members. Minimal diversity clear. Carve-outs inapplicable. Local controversy exposure assessed as low — the sole defendant was Corriveau, a Delaware corporation with its nerve center in Minneapolis under Hertz, so element two of § 1332(d)(4)(A) could not be satisfied by anyone.

Day 9. The finance data arrived: Illinois sales of the labeled products during the class period, transaction counts by year, and average unit price. The statutory damages theory alone exceeded $5,000,000 by a wide margin.

Day 22. Notice of removal filed in the Northern District of Illinois — the district embracing the state court. Six pages. Plausible allegation of the amount with the arithmetic sketched. No declarations attached. All process, pleadings, and orders attached. Written notice to plaintiff's counsel and a copy filed with the state court clerk the same day.

Day 41. Plaintiff moved to remand, contesting the amount and invoking the local controversy exception.

Day 55. Opposition filed with the declaration held back for exactly this moment: the vice president of finance, describing the systems, the query, the class-period Illinois transactions, and the arithmetic connecting them to the statutory damages claim. The damages disclaimer in the complaint was answered in two sentences with Standard Fire. The local controversy argument was answered on element two — there was no in-state defendant — with the citizenship element addressed in the alternative by a short analysis of out-of-state and online purchasers.

Day 88. Remand denied. No § 1453(c) application followed.

What plaintiff's counsel would do differently, and did do in their next filing: name the Illinois-based distributor as a co-defendant, plead its conduct as a significant basis for the claims, and define the class by Illinois citizenship rather than Illinois purchase. That version is a genuinely contested removal, and it is the version defendants should expect.

What Halvorsen-Ruiz would do differently: nothing about the removal, and one thing about the business. Corriveau now runs a standing report of state-by-state transaction volume by product line, refreshed quarterly, so that the amount in controversy analysis in the next case takes an hour rather than nine days.

Step 12 — Check the alternative routes before relying on CAFA

Federal question under § 1331 and § 1441(a), on the well-pleaded complaint rule — including the narrow category of Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), calibrated by Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013).

Ordinary diversity under § 1332(a), still subject to the forum defendant rule in § 1441(b)(2), unanimity, and the one-year limit — all of which CAFA sets aside.

Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, with Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) permitting supplemental jurisdiction over co-plaintiffs who do not individually satisfy the amount.

Other statutes: § 1442 (federal officers and those acting under them, which reaches government contractors more often than expected), § 1443, § 1452 (bankruptcy-related), and § 1454 (patent, plant variety protection, and copyright — uniquely removable by any party).

And § 1359, which denies jurisdiction where a party was improperly or collusively joined to invoke it — the mirror of the fraudulent joinder argument used to disregard a non-diverse defendant against whom no colorable claim is stated.