Rhoades

MEMORANDUM **

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”) appeals an order of the district court remanding a class action lawsuit to state court. We reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

This appeal was taken pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Pub.L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). CAFA authorizes the removal of class action lawsuits from state to federal court where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2). Under CAFA, as in other diversity cases, “the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the burden of showing the case meets the statutory requirements for the exercise of federal jurisdiction and therefore belongs in federal court.” Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 399 (9th Cir.2010). However, “ ‘[ojnce the proponent of federal jurisdiction has explained plausibly how the stakes exceed $5 million, ... then the case belongs in federal court unless it is legally impossible for the plaintiff to recover that much.’ ” Id. (quoting Spivey…

dissenting.

In concluding that we have jurisdiction over the district court’s June 10, 2010 remand order, even though events after the remand have made any controversy regarding that remand order moot, the majority relies on a Fifth Circuit case, News-Texan, Inc. v. City of Garland, 814 F.2d 216, 218 (5th Cir.1987). Our precedent, however, is otherwise: it indicates that when a properly removed case is remanded, and then “becomes moot in the course of litigation,” a federal court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. United Steel Workers Int’l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087 , 1092 n. 3 (9th Cir.2010).

Here, Progressive’s appeal of the district court’s June 10, 2010 remand order is moot. After the June 10th remand, Progressive could have taken one of a number of procedural steps to maintain the status quo, including seeking a stay of the district court’s June 10th remand order pending resolution of this appeal. Had Progressive done so, our jurisdiction over this appeal would have been unaffected. See id. But instead, Progressive decided to remove the case again, resulting in a second remand order that is now both final and unreviewable. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHAD RHOADES; LUIS URBINA, No. 10-17129

Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00763-GEB-

KJM

v.

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY MEMORANDUM*

INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 3, 2010 Stanford, California

Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.**

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (“Progressive”) appeals an order

of the district court remanding a class action lawsuit to state court. We reverse.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,

we need not recount it…