Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

by Clifton R. Gruhn

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence establishing the amount in controversy.  In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the plaintiff alleged that defendants, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, LLC, underpaid royalties owed to putative class members and sought on behalf of the putative class a “fair and reasonable amount” of damages.  Invoking CAFA, the defendants removed the case to federal court.  The plaintiff sought remand, arguing that the defendants’ notice of removal was deficient because it did not include evidence showing that the amount in controversy exceeded CAFA’s jurisdictional $5 million threshold.  The defendants responded by submitting a declaration from an executive officer setting forth a detailed damage calculation indicating an amount in controversy exceeding $11 million.  The plaintiff did not contest the defendants’ damage calculation, but instead claimed that the notice of removal could not be cured by evidence submitted after the case was removed.

Relying on Tenth Circuit precedent, the district court accepted the plaintiff’s argument and remanded the case to state court.  The Tenth Circuit denied discretionary review of the CAFA remand order, which was sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).  Thereafter, the defendants petitioned for certiorari review by the Supreme Court, seeking resolution of the question: “Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal or is alleging a ‘short and plain statement of the grounds for removal’ enough?”  The Supreme Court granted review.

The Court began its analysis by noting that the “short and plain statement” language in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) was intended to track the same language in Rule 8(a) and that courts should apply the same rules to allegations in a notice of removal as those applied to other pleadings.  The Court then explained that, just as a plaintiff’s allegations of amount in controversy should be accepted if made in good faith, so too should a defendant’s allegations.  As clarified by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B), added to § 1446 as part of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Act of 2011, it is only when either the plaintiff or the court questions a defendant’s assertion of the amount in controversy that evidence becomes an issue.  “In such a case, both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied. . . . [o]f course, a dispute about a defendant’s jurisdictional allegations cannot arise until after the defendant files a notice of removal containing those allegations.”

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, slip op. (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Eleventh Circuit Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer To Named Plaintiffs Does Not Moot A Class Action

Next Article »

California District Court Finds that CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement was Satisfied; Denies Motion to Remand

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Related Articles

  1. Supreme Court Accepts Certiorari In CAFA Removal Case
  2. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  3. Attempting to Counter a CAFA Loophole

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

2025 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Damages Class Containing Both Injured and Uninjured Members Can Be Certified
  • Royal Canin v. Wullschleger: A Primer on Jurisdiction
  • Classified (Bi-)Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts July and August 2024

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified®: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Carlton Fields · All Rights Reserved