In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• extending principle that “a post-removal amendment does not defeat federal jurisdiction premised on a federal question or on diversity” to case removed under the Class Action Fairness Act
• “jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to eliminate the class allegations.”
• “After proper removal to federal court, post- removal amendments generally do not destroy statutory subject-matter jurisdiction.”
• “[F]or the purpose of analyzing statutory subject-matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has treated amended complaints in removal cases with flexibility,” to ensure federal jurisdiction can be maintained.
• “Since a post-removal amendment does not defeat federal jurisdiction premised on a federal question or on diversity, we cannot see why it would defeat federal jurisdiction under CAFA.”
• plaintiff filed tort claims in its individual capacity separate from its class claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).