The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that while the removing defendant must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the amount of controversy is adequate, this burden may be met by establishing that it is apparent from the face of the Complaint that the claims probably exceed $75,000.
In Donald Roe v. Michelin North America Inc. __F3d __, 2020 WL 3033802 C.A. 11 (Ala.), 2010. The plaintiff represented the estate of a decedent who was a passenger in a Ford Explorer when the tread on a Michelin tire separated and caused the Explorer to lose control. Plaintiff sought to recover under Alabama’s Wrongful Death Act, a statute which allows plaintiffs to recover punitive, but not compensatory damages. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages that Plaintiff sought. Michelin removed the suit to the United States District Court and stated that the parties were diverse and that although plaintiff did not state a specific amount of damages it was facially apparent from the complaint that the case met the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. Plaintiff did not deny that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 but moved to remand claiming that Michelin failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that more than $75,000 was at issue. In opposing the motion, Michelin asserted that the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to show that the jurisdictional amount in controversy was satisfied and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand.
In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals reviewed its own decisions and also those of other circuits and said:
“Eleventh Circuit precedent permits District Courts to make “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations” from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that the case is removable. Put simply a District Court need not “suspend reality or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of a complaint…establishes the judicial amount.: (Citation omitted) Instead, courts may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements.”