our circuit: Samuel-Bassett, 357 F.3d at 392 (class action removal case arising prior to the enactment of CAFA), and Morgan, 471 F.3d at 469 (class action removal case arising under CAFA). It is to these cases we now turn. 1. Samuelr-Bassett, decided prior to the enactment of CAFA, articulated a template for addressing subject matter jurisdiction challenges by examining two Supreme Court cases: St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938), and McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). In Red Cab, the plaintiff filed suit in state court and, in response to defendant’s removal of the case, subsequently reduced its claim below the requisite amount. 303 U.S. at 285, 58 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court articulated what has become
holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal holding that the court may presume it has jurisdiction over a case once the plaintiffs initial burden of establishing jurisdiction has been satisfied holding that events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable whether beyond the plaintiffs control or the result of his volition do not oust the district courts jurisdiction once it has attached holding events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce amount recoverable do not oust district courts jurisdiction holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts