Pudlowski v. St. Louis Rams, LLC

• Decision Date: 19 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 16-8009,16-8009
• Parties: James Pudlowski; Louis C. Cross, III; Gail Henry ; Steven Henry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC; The St. Louis Rams Partnership; ITB Football Company, LLC, Petitioners.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

829 F.3d 963

James Pudlowski; Louis C. Cross, III; Gail Henry ; Steven Henry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents

v.The St. Louis Rams, LLC; The St. Louis Rams Partnership; ITB Football Company, LLC, Petitioners.

No. 16-8009

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 1, 2016

Filed: July 19, 2016

Elizabeth T. Ferrick, Roger K. Heidenreich, Amy E. Sestric, Dentons US LLP, St. Louis, MO, James A. Klenk, Anders C. Wick, Dentons US LLP, Chicago, IL, for petitioners.

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Anthony L. DeWitt, Mary D. Winter, Bartimus, Frickleton and Robertson, P.C., Jefferson City, MO, for respondents.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC and other associated entities (collectively “Rams”) appeal the district court's decision to remand this case to the Missouri state court. We vacate the district court's order and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

The class of plaintiffs sued the Rams in the Twenty-Second Circuit Court in the city of St. Louis for violating the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The alleged violations arise out of the Rams' relocation of their professional football team to Los Angeles, California. The Rams filed a notice of removal, seeking a federal forum based on the jurisdiction that federal courts have pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Once before the federal district court, the plaintiffs moved the court to remand the case to the state court based predominantly on a lack of minimal diversity necessary to support CAFA jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Rams submitted two postremoval affidavits to demonstrate diversity. In ruling on the motion to remand, the district court expressly declined to consider the affidavits because they were not included as part of the Rams' notice of removal.

On appeal, the Rams argue that the district court erred when it refused to consider the affidavits simply because they were not included as part of the notice of removal. The plaintiffs concede that the district court should have considered the affidavits but nonetheless argue that another appropriate and sufficient reason justified remand.

The Rams properly removed the case to federal court by filing a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Addressing the amount-in-controversy requirement, the Supreme Court recently clarified that “a defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation” that the jurisdictional requirements are met. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554, 190 L.Ed.2d 495 (2014). A defendant is not required to submit evidence establishing federal-court jurisdiction with its notice of removal unless the plaintiff or the court questions the defendant's claim of jurisdiction. Id.

The district court interpreted the rule that a federal court's jurisdiction is measured “at the time of removal,” Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. , 649 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted), to preclude it from considering evidence submitted to the court postremoval. The district court's refusal to consider postremoval evidence effectively denied the Rams the opportunity for jurisdictional discovery to establish their claim of federal jurisdiction. We review such a denial for an abuse of discretion. Steinbuch v. Cutler , 518 F.3d 580, 588 (8th Cir. 2008).

...