Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC, 15-03330-GLR (D. Md. March 30, 2018)
Reiterating that a court will not protect a party from the adverse consequences of its own voluntary acts, a District Court in Maryland denied a second motion to remand where an amended complaint cured defects it had previously identified.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action in state court on behalf of himself and a class of Maryland citizens alleging that Defendant sold him and the class phones it knew were obsolete at the time of the sale. Defendant removed the case, but an initial motion to remand was granted on the basis that it had not proven the necessary amount in controversy. Cricket had sought to establish the amount by submitting evidence as to phones sold to Maryland customers, but because it had not actually established the citizenship of those customers, the District Court held that it had not met its burden. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit remanded the matter for the District Court to make a finding of fact as to the citizenship of the Maryland class, and thus as to the amount in controversy.