Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC

Case Updates

The Fourth Circuit addressed the degree of evidentiary specificity with which a removing defendant must prove jurisdiction to defeat a motion to remand under CAFA. The district court in the case refused jurisdiction, holding that the defendant’s evidence regarding the amount in controversy was “over-inclusive” because it addressed all customers with Maryland addresses, even though the class was defined to include only Maryland citizens. The Fourth Circuit vacated the decision and held that a removing defendant may use over-inclusive evidence to establish the amount in controversy.

Click here to view the U.S. Chamber's amicus brief.

Ryan L. Bangert of Baker Botts L.L.P. served as counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.