When a class action is removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), plaintiffs sometimes amend their pleadings to try to defeat federal jurisdiction. The recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in Faulk v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 2025 WL 3183012 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2025), addresses how post-removal amendments affect federal jurisdiction, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025), required changing prior Ninth Circuit precedent. Under this new decision, if the complaint is amended to remove all class action allegations, the case must be remanded to state court unless there is an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction.

The Case: Amending Away Federal Jurisdiction

David and Bonnie Faulk, Alaska citizens, brought a class action in state court against Spenard Builders Supply (an Alaska corporation) and JELD-WEN (a Delaware corporation), alleging that windows they purchased were defective. The defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA, which generally allows removal based on “minimal diversity” when any class member is a citizen of a different state than any defendant and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

After removal, the Faulks amended their complaint to remove all class action allegations, leaving only state-law claims. The district court, relying on prior Ninth Circuit precedent, denied their motion to remand, holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal—even if the complaint is later amended to eliminate the class claims. The district court later addressed the merits and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Background: Royal Canin and Its Impact on Federal Jurisdiction

According to the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin required altering prior Ninth Circuit precedent regarding which jurisdictional issues are evaluated based on time of removal and which issues can change when a complaint is amended.

In Royal Canin, the defendant removed the case to federal court based on the original complaint including federal statutory claims and asserted supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims. The plaintiff amended the complaint post-removal to eliminate all federal claims, leaving only state-law causes of action. The Supreme Court held that when the basis for federal jurisdiction is excised by amendment in this manner, the plaintiff is the “master of the complaint” and the federal court loses subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. In Faulk, the Ninth Circuit held that this rule applies where a plaintiff removes the class allegations in an amended complaint. Faulk overruled prior circuit precedent that had maintained that federal jurisdiction was based on the complaint at the time of removal, regardless of subsequent amendments.

Important Exception: Amendments Do Not Affect Jurisdictional Facts

Most plaintiffs who bring class actions do not seek to remove the class allegations in order to return to state court. More commonly plaintiffs will try to use amendments that alter the basis for CAFA jurisdiction in other ways, such as narrowing the class definition or attempting to reduce the amount in controversy below $5 million. While Royal Canin allows some amendments to divest a court of federal jurisdiction, there are important exceptions. One of these is that jurisdictional facts such as the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy are generally determined based on the original complaint at the time of removal, not affected by later amendments.

This exception, discussed in footnotes in Faulk and Royal Canin, is rooted in the longstanding rule from St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938), which holds that an amendment reducing the amount in controversy below the statutory threshold will usually not destroy diversity jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Royal Canin acknowledged this rule, stating that it was “inapposite” to the question presented, but reaffirmed its continued validity in cases where the amendment only affects the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, rather than the substantive basis for federal jurisdiction.

Practical Implications

In most cases defendants would prefer that a plaintiff withdraw the class action allegations even if this results in a return to state court because there is no other ground for federal jurisdiction (such as if complete diversity is lacking or the named plaintiffs’ claims do not exceed $75,000). While under Faulk plaintiffs can amend their complaints to remove the class allegations and return to state court, under other rules that remain good law, plaintiffs cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by simply reducing the amount in controversy or altering party citizenship after removal. Whether, after Royal Canin, courts will allow amendments to class definitions to alter the CAFA jurisdictional analysis on issues other than citizenship or amount in controversy remains to be seen.

Photo of Wystan Ackerman Wystan Ackerman

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you…

I am a partner at the law firm of Robinson+Cole in Hartford, Connecticut, USA.  My contact information is on the contact page of my blog.  I really enjoy receiving questions, comments, suggestions and even criticism from readers.  So please e-mail me if you have something to say.  For those looking for my detailed law firm bio, click here.  If you want a more light-hearted and hopefully more interesting summary, read on:

People often ask about my unusual first name, Wystan.  It’s pronounced WISS-ten.  It’s not Winston.  There is no “n” in the middle.  It comes from my father’s favorite poet, W.H. (Wystan Hugh) Auden.  I’ve grown to like the fact that because my name is unusual people tend to remember it better, even if they don’t pronounce it right (and there is no need for anyone to use my last name because I’m always the only Wystan).

I grew up in Deep River, Connecticut, a small town on the west side of the Connecticut River in the south central part of the state.  I’ve always had strong interests in history, politics and baseball.  My heroes growing up were Abraham Lincoln and Wade Boggs (at that time the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox).  I think it was my early fascination with Lincoln that drove me to practice law.  I went to high school at The Williams School in New London, Connecticut, where I edited the school newspaper, played baseball, and was primarily responsible for the installation of a flag pole near the school entrance (it seemed like every other school had one but until my class raised the money and bought one at my urging, Williams had no flag pole).  As a high school senior, my interest in history and politics led me to score high enough on a test of those subjects to be chosen as one of Connecticut’s two delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program, which further solidified my interest in law and government.  One of my mentors at Williams was of the view that there were far too many lawyers and I should find something more useful to do, but if I really had to be a lawyer there was always room for one more.  I eventually decided to be that “one more.”  I went on to Bowdoin College, where I wrote for the Bowdoin Orient and majored in government, but took a lot of math classes because I found college math interesting and challenging.  I then went to Columbia Law School, where I was lucky enough to be selected as one of the minions who spent their time fastidiously cite-checking and Blue booking hundred-plus-page articles in the Columbia Law Review.  I also interned in the chambers of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was a relatively new judge on the Second Circuit, my only connection to someone who now has one-ninth of the last word on what constitutes the law of our land.  I graduated from Columbia in 2001, then worked at Skadden Arps in Boston before returning to Connecticut and joining Robinson+Cole, one of the largest Connecticut-based law firms.  At the end of 2008, I was elected a partner at Robinson+Cole.

I’ve worked on class actions since the start of my career.  Being in the insurance capital of Hartford, we have a national insurance litigation practice and most of the class actions I’ve defended have been brought against insurance companies. I’ve also handled some involving products liability, managed care, health care, utilities, financial services, higher education and environmental issues.

My insurance class action practice usually takes me outside of Connecticut.  I’ve had the pleasure of working on cases in various federal and state courts and collaborating with great lawyers across the country.  While class actions are an increasingly large part of my practice, I don’t do exclusively class action work.  The rest of my practice involves litigating insurance coverage cases, often at the appellate level.  That also frequently takes me outside of Connecticut.  A highlight of my career thus far was working on Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the U.S. Supreme Court’s first Class Action Fairness Act case.  I was Counsel of Record for Standard Fire on the cert petition, and had the pleasure of working with Ted Boutrous on the merits briefing and oral argument.

I started this blog because writing is one of my favorite things to do and I enjoy following developments in class action law, writing about them and engaging in discussion with others who have an in interest in this area.  It’s a welcome break from day-to-day practice, keeps me current, broadens my network and results in some new business.

When I’m not at work, you might find me running lines or watching a musical with my teenage daughter who hopes to be a Broadway star (or taking her to voice or dance lessons) or reading a good book.

Read more about Wystan Ackerman
Show more Show less