Katherine Lopez v. Wendy's International, Inc. , 518 F. App'x 580 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHERINE LOPEZ, individually and No. 13-55529
on behalf of all other similarly situated
current and former employees of Wendy’s D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00275-TJH-JC
International, Inc.,
Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM *
v.
WENDY’S INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.3.1
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1
Wendy’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent’s Brief is denied
as moot.