On June 4, 2015, in In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco P’ship et al., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a post-removal amendment to a complaint that eliminates the class allegations does not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (No. 14-1622, (2d Cir. June 4, 2015).

The plaintiff filed an action alleging state law class action claims on behalf of itself and other similarly situated parties against Verizon and several of its subsidiaries. The complaint also alleged two individual state law claims on behalf of the lead plaintiff only. Under CAFA, Verizon removed the case to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which transferred the case to the US District Court for the District of New Jersey where a suit involving similar issues was pending. The plaintiffs then amended the complaint and dropped all class action allegations.

Citing improper venue, the New Jersey district court transferred the case back to the Southern District of New York. There, the defendants moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in substantial part, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims and appealed, arguing that because the action no longer involved any class action claims, federal claims or had complete diversity, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly maintained jurisdiction in this case. The court explained that because removal cases raise forum-shopping concerns, federal courts treat removal cases differently from cases that originated in federal court. The court noted that post-removal amendments do not eliminate federal jurisdiction in the federal question or diversity contexts, and held that the principle extends to CAFA. In doing so, the Second Circuit joined the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which recently upheld the same principle (In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010)(“jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class allegations”)).