From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 17, 2013
518 F. App'x 580 (9th Cir. 2013)

Summary

reaching the same conclusion after the district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims

Summary of this case from Lee v. Postmates Inc.

Opinion

No. 13-55529 D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00275-TJH-JC

05-17-2013

KATHERINE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of Wendy's International, Inc., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Terry J. Hatter, Senior District Judge, Presiding


Submitted May 10, 2013

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Pasadena, California

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Wendy's International, Inc. appeals the order of the district court remanding this case to state court. The remand order came after the district court dismissed the last remaining representative or class claims in the complaint.

We have jurisdiction to review the remand order under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). We review the remand order de novo. United Steel Workers Int'l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010).

In the context of diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), "post-filing developments do not defeat jurisdiction if jurisdiction was properly invoked as of the time of filing." United Steel, 602 F.3d at 1091-92. In this case, there is no dispute that the district court had jurisdiction at the time of removal. Accordingly, the subsequent dismissal of the representative and class action claims did not strip the district court of jurisdiction. See id. The dismissal of these claims is not an exception to the "general rule" of "once jurisdiction, always jurisdiction." Id. at 1092 n.3.

Wendy's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent's Brief is denied as moot.
--------

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Lopez v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 17, 2013
518 F. App'x 580 (9th Cir. 2013)

reaching the same conclusion after the district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss class claims

Summary of this case from Lee v. Postmates Inc.
Case details for

Lopez v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KATHERINE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 17, 2013

Citations

518 F. App'x 580 (9th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Lee v. Postmates Inc.

While the Ninth Circuit has held that federal courts retain CAFA jurisdiction after the denial of a class…