In Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274 (9th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-15499), defendant successfully removed a class action to federal court, defeating plaintiffs’ motion to remand.  Plaintiffs then sought leave to amend the complaint to destroy diversity jurisdiction by limiting the class to the citizens of a single state.  The district court granted leave to amend and remanded the case.  The Ninth Circuit reversed.  While the Ninth Circuit established in Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2015), that plaintiffs may amend their complaint upon removal to clarify the nature of their claims for purposes of determining jurisdiction, the court clarified in Broadway Grill that plaintiffs may not do so to eliminate minimal diversity and divest the federal courts of jurisdiction.  The Ninth Circuit noted that its Benko decision led to uncertainty in the district courts as to when post-removal amendment was proper.  It attempted to resolve that uncertainty by holding that whether remand is proper must be determined based on the pleadings at the time of removal.  Thus, although Benko allows amendments to “clarify jurisdiction,” attempts to amend a complaint after removal to eliminate jurisdiction “are doomed to failure.”  The court explained its holding was in accord with CAFA’s purpose of expanding federal jurisdiction in class actions.  One member of the panel dissented, concluding that the amendment fit within the parameters previously articulated in Benko.