The District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled recently that federal courts retain jurisdiction under CAFA even after class action status has been denied. In Kitts v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., plaintiffs commenced a class action in Louisiana state court alleging that they suffered health problems after a nearby Citgo facility allegedly released dangerous chemicals during a 2006 oil spill. Citgo removed the action to federal court pursuant to CAFA. Following nearly eighteen months of litigation in federal court, and less than a week before trial, the plaintiffs sought to remand the action arguing that the district court’s denial of their class certification motion stripped the court of jurisdiction. The court, however, disagreed. Although the court recognized that some district courts have held that remand is warranted when post-removal activities affect the original basis for removal, the court found more “compelling the reasoning of those cases finding jurisdiction continues to exist even after denial of the class action.” The court found “[p]articularly appropriate” the conclusion reached by the Southern District of Florida in the similarly postured Colomar v. Mercy Hospital, Inc. case, which held that developments subsequent to removal do not affect the courts’ jurisdiction, if jurisdiction was proper at the time of removal. Relying on the Colomar decision the court noted that, since plaintiffs conceded that this matter was properly removed under CAFA, “plaintiffs’ current efforts to unravel jurisdiction ‘equates to a forum shopping which the traditional rules of removal and remand are designed to preclude.’”