§ 1332(d)(ll)(B)(i) & § 1332(a). Plaintiff argues that the mass action provisions of CAFA do not confer jurisdiction here for three reasons. First, Plaintiff states that this case does not satisfy CAFA’s numerosity requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(ll)(13)(i). Second, Plaintiff argues that the suit is not a mass action because it does not meet CAFA’s $75,000 jurisdictional threshold requirement for mass actions. Id. Third, Plaintiff contends that the suit does not fall within CAFA’s jurisdictional exception for cases brought on behalf of the general public. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(ll)(B)(ii)(III). - The Court concludes that, for the same reasons that it found the State to be a real party in interest, this suit does not constitute a “mass action” under CAFA. See Tanoh, 561 F.3d at 952 (<HOLDING>); Cal. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Moody’s
holding that plaintiffs fatally deficient protest cannot be resuscitated by plaintiffs conjecture that customs had actual knowledge of plaintiffs claimed classification holding that a class action is not mooted by the intervening resolution of the controversy as to the named plaintiffs holding that a domestic plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to more deference than a foreign plaintiffs holding that a plaintiffs belief that a product could fail in the future is not without more a legal injury sufficient to support plaintiffs claim holding that cafas requirement of 100 or more plaintiffs refers only to actual named plaintiffs