## Facts

- Massachusetts subscribers to cable, internet, or telephone services alleged service interruptions during a severe October 2011 snowstorm.
- Service loss allegedly resulted from power outages, Charter equipment failures, or both.
- Plaintiffs alleged municipal cable-franchise licenses required Charter to provide pro rata credits when outages exceeded a specified duration (often 24 hours).
- Charter allegedly provided credits only when customers complained, not automatically for all affected subscribers.
- Plaintiffs asserted contract-based, statutory (including consumer protection), and common-law theories (including unjust enrichment), and sought damages/restitution plus declaratory relief defining Charter’s credit obligations.
- Charter removed a putative class action from Massachusetts state court to federal court under CAFA.
- The district court found CAFA jurisdiction, dismissed three plaintiffs’ damages claims as moot after they received credits, and dismissed the remaining plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the federal court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, including the amount-in-controversy requirement and any statutory exceptions.
2. Whether Charter’s post-filing issuance of credits mooted the plaintiffs’ claims, particularly requests for declaratory relief about ongoing credit obligations.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under contract/license-based theories and related statutory and common-law theories sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed that CAFA jurisdiction existed.
- The court held the action was not moot because a live dispute remained over Charter’s obligations and all four plaintiffs could pursue declaratory relief.
- The court vacated in part the dismissal and remanded, concluding the complaint plausibly alleged entitlement to relief on at least some claims.
- The court rejected the district court’s broad Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- CAFA jurisdiction is determined by the aggregated amount in controversy, and a plaintiff invoking a CAFA statutory exception bears the burden to show the exception applies.
- A claim is not moot where declaratory relief could still affect the parties’ future conduct and clarify ongoing obligations, even if some past monetary harm has been compensated.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and ask only whether the allegations make entitlement to relief plausible.
- At the pleading stage, alleged obligations contained in municipal franchise licenses may plausibly support contract-related and related restitutionary/consumer-protection theories without resolving ultimate enforceability.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that federal jurisdiction under CAFA was proper and that Charter’s issuance of credits to some plaintiffs did not eliminate a live controversy because declaratory relief on Charter’s credit obligations remained available; the court further held that the complaint plausibly stated at least some claims and remanded for further proceedings.


Cooper v. Charter Commc’ns Entm’t I, LLC, 760 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2014)