Adrianne Adams filed a putative wage and hour class action in state court, which her former employer (West Marine) removed to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act “CAFA”. Invoking the discretionary home state controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction and ordered the case remanded to state court. On appeal, West Marine argued that the district court erred because Adams did not meet her burden of showing that greater than one-third of the putative class members were California citizens at the time of removal; West Marine also argued that the district court erred when it sua sponte invoked the discretionary home state exception to CAFA jurisdiction without giving West Marine the opportunity to brief or argue the issue. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order remanding the action to state court, holding that the district court was permitted to infer that more than one-third of the putative class members were California citizens because the last known addresses of over 90% of the putative class members are in California. The Court also rejected West Marine’s argument that it was not afforded the opportunity to fully brief the issue before the district court. See also Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2020 WL 3866577 (9th Cir. 2020) (suitable seating case brought under PAGA ordered remanded to state court because amount in controversy failed to meet $75,000 jurisdictional threshold and PAGA claims do not trigger CAFA jurisdiction).