A defendant may remove a state case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within 30 days after receipt of the initial pleading. CAFA contains a second removal provision, which permits removal “within 30 days after receipt by the defendant” of a pleading “or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” In Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., 819 F.3d 277 (6th Cir. 2016) (No. 16-3167), plaintiff brought a consumer fraud claim. Defendant removed the case unsuccessfully. On remand, plaintiff amended the complaint to seek class relief. Six months later, defendant removed the case a second time. The district court found the second removal untimely. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Focusing on the CAFA removal provision, the Sixth Circuit held that information establishing the basis for removal must come from a source outside of defendant’s control. Thus, even though it could be argued that defendant knew the case presented a sufficient amount in controversy to justify CAFA removal, the date triggering CAFA removability is the date the defendant receives information from the plaintiff asserting that fact. Any other rule would involve guesswork and ambiguity. Agreeing with other circuits to have addressed the issue, the court ruled that CAFA’s removal provision contains a bright-line rule that limits inquiry to information provided to the defendant by the plaintiff. Applying this standard, the 30-day window never began to run because plaintiffs had not provided the required notification. The court further held that even if the case was originally removable under general removal provisions and that time had lapsed, defendant could still remove the action under CAFA. The expiration of the other 30-day requirement did not eliminate defendant’s removal rights under CAFA.