Whether plaintiffs' intent matters in assessing if plaintiffs have 'proposed' a joint trial of the claims of 100 or more persons pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (““CAFA”) vests federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction over mass actions “in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11). After filing nine identical complaints—each consisting of just under 100 plaintiffs, but collectively more than 800 moved to consolidate the cases under a Connecticut state court rule that expressly and solely provides for consolidation “for trial.” Conn. Prac. Book § 9-5. Defendants thereafter removed the nine cases under CAFA. The Second Circuit nevertheless affirmed the District Court’s decision to remand the cases to state court on the basis that Plaintiffs did not “intend” to seek trial consolidation. The question presented is: Whether plaintiffs’ intent matters in assessing if plaintiffs have “proposed” a joint trial of the claims of 100 or more persons pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)? (i)