661 REMOVAL Amount in Controversy (2014)
The Supreme Court of the United States in December 2014 held that proof of the amount in controversy is not required in the notice of removal itself. In Dart Cherokee Operating Company, LLC v. Owens 574 U.S. ______ 2014 WL 7010692 (Dec. 15, 2014) the defendants Notice of Removal alleged that the amount in controversy totaled over 8.2 million. Plaintiff moved to remand the case to the state court, asserting that the removal notice was “deficient as a matter of law” because it included “no evidence” proving that the amount in controversy exceeded 5 million, the amount required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Supreme Court noted that the defendant is seeking to remove a case to federal court must file in the federal forum a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal (? 1446 (a). The Court said that that rule tracked the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court framed the issue before it as follows:
“To assert the amount and controversy adequately in the removal notice, does it suffice to allege the requisite amount plausibly, or must the defendant incorporate into the notice of removal evidence supporting the allegation? That is the single question argued here and below by the parties and the issue on which we granted review. The answer, we hold, is supplied by the removal statute itself. A statement “short and plain” need not contain evidentiary submissions.”
The Supreme Court acknowledged that there were Tenth Circuit rulings holding that there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction and pointed out that no anti-removal presumption attends cases involving CAFA. Interest by the Supreme Court also said that it need not decide in this case whether such a presumption is proper in minerun diversity cases. In view of the court”?s analysis predicated on ? 1446 might seem that the Supreme Court would rule the same way in a non-CAFA case.
As the court said:
“In sum, as specified in ? 1446 (a) a defendants”? notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing that the amount is required by ? 1446 (c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests when the court questions the defendants”? allegation.”
The Supreme Court of the United States in December 2014 held that proof of the amount in controversy is not required in the notice of removal itself. In Dart Cherokee Operating Company, LLC v. Owens 574 U.S. ______ 2014 WL 7010692 (Dec. 15, 2014) the defendants Notice of Removal alleged that the amount in controversy totaled over 8.2 million. Plaintiff moved to remand the case to the state court, asserting that the removal notice was “deficient as a matter of law” because it included “no evidence” proving that the amount in controversy exceeded 5 million, the amount required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Supreme Court noted that the defendant is seeking to remove a case to federal court must file in the federal forum a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal (? 1446 (a). The Court said that that rule tracked the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court framed the issue before it as follows:
“To assert the amount and controversy adequately in the removal notice, does it suffice to allege the requisite amount plausibly, or must the defendant incorporate into the notice of removal evidence supporting the allegation? That is the single question argued here and below by the parties and the issue on which we granted review. The answer, we hold, is supplied by the removal statute itself. A statement “short and plain” need not contain evidentiary submissions.”
The Supreme Court acknowledged that there were Tenth Circuit rulings holding that there is a presumption against removal jurisdiction and pointed out that no anti-removal presumption attends cases involving CAFA. Interest by the Supreme Court also said that it need not decide in this case whether such a presumption is proper in minerun diversity cases. In view of the court”?s analysis predicated on ? 1446 might seem that the Supreme Court would rule the same way in a non-CAFA case.
As the court said:
“In sum, as specified in ? 1446 (a) a defendants”? notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing that the amount is required by ? 1446 (c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests when the court questions the defendants”? allegation.”
