the responsible party has met its burden. 6 . We note that CAFA-exception cases holding that "a rebuttable presumption' that a person’s residence is his domicile” are inapplicable to the determination of whether the amount in controversy is met here. Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C., 842 F.3d 383, 390 (6th Cir. 2016). In CAFA-exception cases, the court has necessarily determined that jurisdiction exists and is only considering whether the exceptions impose a limit. The Sixth Circuit in Mason explained as much. Id., 842 F.3d at 392 (noting that because "the local controversy exception is not jurisdictional ... a party asserting the exception does not encounter” presumptions against federal jurisdiction); see also Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); cf. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,
holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction recognizing that federal courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction where warranted by regard for federalstate relations holding that when original jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial the district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims unless there is an affirmative justification for doing so holding that cafa exceptions are nonjurisdictional because they require federal courtsalthough they have jurisdiction  to decline to exercise jurisdiction when cafas threshold requirements are met