In Re Sprint Nextel Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, if the plaintiffs de- fined a class as all Kansas citizens, the plaintiffs would guarantee that the action would remain in state court
• rejecting that proposed class of “all Kansas residents” met local controversy exception, and noting that any inferences based on the class definition without actual evidence were based on “guesswork”
• stating that plaintiff must establish that two-thirds of the class members are citizens of the forum state “by a preponderance of the evidence” and describing the types of evidence that would suffice
• stating that “affidavits or survey responses in which putative class members reveal whether they intend to remain in Kansas indefinitely” might be sufficient to establish citizenship of those survey respondents under CAFA’s home-state exception
• acknowledging that “plaintiffs could have guaranteed that the suit would remain in state court” if “the plaintiffs might have defined their class as all Kansas citizens who purchased text messaging from Sprint Nextel or an alleged coconspirator”
• observing that if the plaintiffs had “defined their class as all Kansas citizens who purchased text messaging from Sprint Nextel or an alleged coconspirator” instead of Kansas residents, “the plaintiffs could have guaranteed that the suit would remain in state court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).