Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. Aestheticare, LLC, No. 07-2575, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D. Kansas April 9, 2008).

Such a belated post demands discussing in song, after a short introduction. 

The removal in this case was improperly based on diversity because the amount in controversy was too low. The district court held that the notice of removal could not be amended to assert CAFA jurisdiction, which would be a new ground because CAFA substantially changed jurisdictional principles and did not simply affect the amount in controversy.   Now, feel free to sing along – you know the tune.  Just think Doris Day.

When I was a removed small class action,

I asked my counsel, why are we here?

Can there be remand? Is this for real?

Here’s what my counsel said.


Que Sera, CAFA. 

The defense asserts diversity, only.

We have low damages, we plead.

Que Sera, CAFA. 

To state court we’ll be, you’ll see.


When we opposed, they added CAFA.

We asked the court, can they amend?

This is a new theory, and it’s too late.

Here’s what the district court said.


Que Sera, CAFA. 

This change is not to be.

You’re changing things jurisdictionally.

Que Sera, CAFA. 

There’s LLC citizenship, and plaintiff numerosity.


Even if you could add CAFA, you still wouldn’t win. 

The class is too small, pled to be thirty-eight.

And for A-I-C, you just speculate.

Cause to remand, alternatively.


Que Sera, CAFA. 

You removed unreasonably,

And should have foreseen.

Que Sera, CAFA. 

Remand will be with fees.