In seeking remand under the Class Action Fairness Act’s home state exception, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that 2/3rds or more of the members of the entire plaintiff class are citizens of the home state.  Here, plaintiff failed to meet that burden because of her inept class definition.  She defined the class to include all persons “located in or residing in” California whose telephone calls defendant had recorded without first obtaining their consent.  In jurisdiction-related discovery, defendant produced a list of potential class members with California addresses–but that list identified only California residents, not those “located in” California.  Plaintiff did not seek further discovery on the issue.  Since there was no evidence to show how many class members fit within the “located in” subclass, there was no way to determine whether 2/3rds of the entire class were California citizens.  So plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving the home state exception applied.

 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (M. Smith, J.); October 20, 2017; 2017 WL 4700096.