In Briggs v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, No. 15-55873, 2015 WL 4645605 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015), the court held that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)--which extends removal jurisdiction to civil actions where the monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly--did not apply to hundreds of plaintiffs' claims regarding the same prescription drug. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not proposed a joint trial within the meaning of CAFA even though most of them expressly represented to the district court that they intended for their cases to be joined for trial in the ongoing Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) in Los Angeles and some of the plaintiffs actually filed a petition in state court to join the JCCP. In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs' representations to the district court did not constitute a valid proposal for a joint trial because the district court lacked authority to join the plaintiffs' cases to the JCCP, and that the act of filing the petition to join the JCCP did not constitute a proposal for a joint trial because it included a declaration stating that plaintiffs did not seek joint trials. Briggs highlights the fact-specific nature of the Ninth Circuit's determinations of mass-action jurisdiction and illustrates tactical wording that plaintiffs may use in the future to attempt to defeat CAFA jurisdiction.