In Janis v. Health Net, Inc., No. 12-55206, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5767 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2012), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order remanding a case to state court with instructions to the district court to consider jurisdictional evidence submitted after the filing of the notice of removal.  The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant in state court.  The defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to CAFA.  In the notice of removal, the defendant sufficiently alleged that all of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) had been met.  The plaintiff moved for remand, arguing that defendant had failed to prove CAFA’s jurisdictional requirements.  The defendant opposed the motion to remand and submitted evidence in support of removal, but the district court refused to consider the evidence because it was submitted after the filing of the notice of removal.  The defendant then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand, holding that “[n]othing in 28 U.S.C. §1446 requires a removing defendant to attach evidence of the federal court’s jurisdiction to its notice of removal.” Id. at *2.  Section 1446(a) only requires a “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.”  Id.  According to prior Ninth Circuit case law, “it is clearly appropriate for the district courts, in their discretion, to accept certain post-removal [evidence] as determinative of the [jurisdictional requirements].” Id.  Based upon such, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court had abused its discretion in refusing to consider the evidence.