Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Ehrman v. Cox Communs., Inc.

Ehrman v. Cox Communs., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 11, 2019, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California; August 8, 2019, Filed

No. 19-55658

Opinion

 [*1225]  M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

When a defendant removes a case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), how much evidence of the parties' citizenships must it provide? If the defendant's citizenship allegations are unchallenged factually, the answer is none. In such cases, all a removing party must do is provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal. Because Defendants Cox Communications' (and related entities') notice of removal did just that, and because Plaintiff David Ehrman did not factually attack Cox's jurisdictional allegations, we reverse the district court's grant of Ehrman's motion to remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ehrman filed a class action complaint against Cox in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that Cox had engaged in unlawful business practices related to the advertisement and sale of residential [**3]  internet services. Ehrman brought the case on behalf of himself and "all consumers in  [*1226]  California who paid for [Cox's] residential Internet services within four years from the date this action was filed."

Cox removed the case to the district court pursuant to CAFA. Cox alleged in its notice of removal that Ehrman's suit met CAFA's removal requirements because it was a putative class action with more than 100 class members, that there was minimal diversity between the parties, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Cox, a purported citizen of Delaware and Georgia, asserted based on information and belief that Ehrman and all class members are citizens of California.

Ehrman then moved to remand the case to state court. Asserting a facial challenge to Cox's notice of removal, Ehrman argued that Cox had failed to adequately plead the existence of minimal diversity. He claimed that Cox's allegations of citizenship were insufficient because they relied "purely on an allegation of residency and [on] 'information and belief.'"

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

932 F.3d 1223 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23671 **; 2019 WL 3720013

DAVID EHRMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; COXCOM, LLC; COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, and DOES, 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants-Appellants.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by, Rehearing denied by, En banc Ehrman v. Cox Communs., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28205 (9th Cir. Cal., Sept. 17, 2019)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Ehrman v. Cox Communs., Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2566, 206 L. Ed. 2d 497, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 1996 (U.S., Mar. 30, 2020)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. 8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM. James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding.

Ehrman v. Cox Communs., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210532, 2018 WL 6571228 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2018)

Disposition: REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

allegations, removal, citizenship, diversity, residency, district court, notice, class action, class member, plain statement, domicile, facial

Civil Procedure, Removal, Postremoval Remands, Appellate Review, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Class Action Fairness Act, Diversity Jurisdiction, Citizenship, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Preliminary Considerations, Specific Cases Removed, Specific Cases Removed, Diversity of Citizenship, Elements for Removal, Removability, Procedural Matters, Notice of Removal, Amount in Controversy, Challenges, Motions for Remand