In Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC, 865 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-2300), plaintiff sued Cricket alleging breach of warranty and consumer fraud claims in connection with the sale of cellular telephones. Cricket invoked CAFA to remove the case to federal court. The district court remanded the case to state court, finding Cricket had not proved jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court stated that a removal petition must allege CAFA jurisdiction exists. If the plaintiff challenges removal, as here, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating removal jurisdiction is proper by a preponderance of the evidence. If jurisdiction depends on contested claims of class member citizenship, as here, the removing defendant must do more than present “naked averments of citizenship.” The district court erred in rejecting Cricket’s evidence simply because it included Maryland residents, not all of whom are Maryland citizens. On remand, the district court was to consider all of the factors relevant to domicile and decide whether Cricket had presented enough facts to permit a court to determine by a preponderance of the evidence, not speculate, that it was more likely than not that jurisdiction existed.