Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9^th Cir. 2018)

At issue in this case is whether the district court erred in remanding an action to state court that had been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) on the ground that the defendant failed to prove that CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement had been satisfied.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order on the ground that the district court had failed to take into account future attorneys’ fees that the employer might recover under a contract or statute.  On remand, the defendant retains the burden to prove the amount of future attorneys’ fees by a preponderance of the evidence.  See also King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp.2018 WL 4231847 (9^th Cir. 2018) (CAFA-removed action was erroneously remanded to state court based upon parties’ stipulation that “at least two-thirds of the putative class members had last-known addresses in California”); McCray v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 4167147 (9^th Cir. 2018) (district court should have remanded action to state court that was removed to federal court on the basis of LMRA Section 301 preemption on the ground that the lawsuit did not require substantial analysis of the plaintiff’s union’s collective bargaining agreement).