Harris

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs, former employees of GTE Corporation and purported representatives *959 of a class of similarly situated individuals, appeal the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of their complaint, originally filed in state court and subsequently removed, which alleged that defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. and GTE Corporation (collectively ‘Verizon”) improperly allowed Plaintiffs’ stock to escheat to the state of California. We reverse the dismissal as improper because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. As the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our ruling.

We evaluate subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as it stood at the time of removal, and disregard any subsequent amendments. See Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 , 650 (9th Cir.1998). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), is “strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Hofler v. Aetna, U.S. Healthcare of Ca„ Inc., 296 F.3d 764 , 767 (9th Cir. 2002).

The sole basis for federal jurisdiction over the state causes of action alleged in the original complaint is complete ERISA…