Jose Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether “a person’s residence [is] prima facie evidence of the person’s domicile”
• noting that a plaintiff can avoid CAFA jurisdiction by “limit[ing]the class by defining it to consist only of California citizens”
• noting that the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether ‘a person’s residence [is] prima facie evidence of the person’s domicile’
• finding that language limiting a class to those who “purchased a vehicle in California” did not satisfy the two-thirds element because it was likely that an unknown number of those purchasers were not California citizens
• vacating remand order where the plaintiff'“failed to satisfy his burden'of proof’ that two-thirds of all class members were California citizens
• citing, among other authority, Anderson, 138 U.S. at CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 23-1186-MWF (AFMx

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).