The Supreme Court will now decide whether a 2006 Seventh Circuit decision on Class Action Fairness Act pleading requirements was correct. The Court granted certiorari today in a case that will resolve whether defendants filing removal notices under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), have to plead “evidence supporting their calculation” that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Dart Cherokee Basin Op’g Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719. A divided panel of the Tenth Circuit refused to hear an appeal of a Kansas district court’s remand order articulating the pleading requirement in these words. The Court of Appeals then refused by an evenly divided vote to review the panel’s decision en banc. 730 F.3d 1234 (2013). The Supreme Court will now resolve the issue.
This is not currently an issue in the Seventh Circuit because Meridian Security Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006), held that evidentiary facts need not be alleged in removal petitions. The court held that the only time proof comes into play is if the plaintiff contests factual allegations that support the defendant’s estimate of the amount in controversy, in which case the district court is to establish those facts in a hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Then, applying the standard in St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938), the case is to stay in federal court “unless it is legally certain that the controversy is worth less than the jurisdictional minimum.” Sadowski, 441 F.3d at 542.
(The issue in Dart Cherokee can only arise in a CAFA removal, because the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 amended 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) to make clear that amount-in-controversy disputes in cases removed under the traditional diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), are to be resolved after removal in the way that Sadowski spells out.)
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.