Whether plaintiffs can evade federal CAFA-jurisdiction through pleading-artifices

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case concerns the ability of class action plaintiffs to subvert the jurisdictional protections of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) and the removal statutes through procedural gamesmanship. This Court has emphasized that courts must not “exalt form over substance” when assessing federal CAFA jurisdiction. Standard Fire Ins. Co v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 595 (2013). And it has long held that postremoval events “do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has attached.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938). This case turns on those two principles. Plaintiffs here filed a class action complaint against Erie Indemnity Co. (“Indemnity”) in state court. After Indemnity removed to federal court, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed and refiled an amended version of their complaint—which pleaded the same claim, based on the same legal theory and facts, and sought the same sort of class-wide relief on behalf of all Erie Insurance policyholders nationwide. But, in an effort to thwart federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs purported to restyle their class action under different state rules. The decision below held that such maneuvering could defeat federal CAFA jurisdiction. The questions presented are: 1. Whether plaintiffs can evade federal CAFA jurisdiction through pleading artifices, while pursuing a representative action for the purported benefit of a class of millions of individuals nationwide. ii 2. Whether plaintiffs can destroy vested federal CAFA jurisdiction by voluntarily dismissing and then refiling an amended version of their complaint.