Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 127 The Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, holding that a “district court cannot look beyond the complaint in determining whether the criteria of subsections (aa) [“significant relief”] and (bb) [“significant basis”] have been satisfied.”643 Thus, extrinsic evidence will not be considered in evaluating this exception. Coleman explained that this conclusion was required not only by the plain language of these subparts, but also because any contrary holding would result in an expansive “mini-trial,” contrary to congressional intent that jurisdiction determinations be made quickly under CAFA.644 In Christmas v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,645 the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed Coleman: “for the purposes of the local controversy exception ‘the district court is to look to the complaint rather than to extrinsic evidence.’” Christmas held that “[t]o determine if the Plaintiffs claim ‘significant relief’ from a defendant, ‘we look to the remedies requested by the Plaintiffs.’”646 Christmas found that the local controversy exception applied even though the local defendants were individuals, rather than a corporate entity.647 2. Home State Exception Under the home state exception, a federal court must decline jurisdiction where: (1) 2/3 or more of the proposed class members are citizens of the forum state and (2) the primary defendants are citizens of the forum state.648 Unlike the local controversy exception, this exception does not require the court to consider other lawsuits. The party moving to remand the class action to state court must prove that the home state exception applies.649 E. Waiver A defendant may be considered to have waived the right to remove to federal court when, after it is apparent that the case is removable, it takes actions in state court that manifest an intent to have the matter adjudicated there.650 The Ninth Circuit has held that “a waiver of the right of removal must be clear and unequivocal.”651 In Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Serv., LLC, a case removed to federal district court, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s removal was untimely because the defendant had filed a demurrer in state court and did not remove FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 457 F.3d 675, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2006); see also S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 44 (“It is the Committee’s intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption.”). 643 Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, 631 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). 644 Id. at 1017. 645 698 F. App'x 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2017). 646 Id. (citing Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir. 2015)). 647 Id. at 889-90. 648 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B). 649 Serrano, 478 F.3d at 1024. 650 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230, 1240 (9th Cir. 1995). 651 Id.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4