If the defendants wish to remove to federal court under a statute imposing an amount-in-controversy requirement most commonly the diversity jurisdiction statute, which requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, "exclusive of interest and costs," 28 U.S.C.
If damages are contested, "both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied," with the removing defendant bearing the burden of proof.
Applying that standard, the court determined that the removal petition was deficient because it "fail[ed] to incorporate any evidence" supporting its amount-in-controversy calculation, "such as an economic analysis of the amount in controversy or settlement estimates." Id.
Indeed, CAFA provides unequivocally that the notice of removal adequately alleges satisfaction of the amount-in-controversy requirement if the complaint filed by the plaintiff class alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, without regard to whether the plaintiffs have affixed to the complaint evidence supporting their allegation.
Frisch, Judicial Approaches to the Amount-in-Controversy
Requirement for Diversity Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases, 64 DISP.
Since its inception, Congress has successively restricted diversity jurisdiction by raising the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Revisiting the principle that all that is required to bring a diversity claim is complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, and that the plaintiff has pied at least the amount-in-controversy, this seems like a significant, and wholly unnecessary, amount of work.
C prefers state court, but since A meets the diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements, there is little C can do.
(86) In fact, the Red Cab plaintiff, while filing its suit in state court, had expressly claimed damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy
In cases where a plaintiff brings an action in federal court and a defendant seeks dismissal on amount-in-controversy grounds, the case will not be dismissed unless it appears, to a "legal certainty," that the original claim was really for less than the jurisdictional amount.
It does not place upon the defendant the daunting burden of proving, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff's damages are not less than the amount-in-controversy requirement.
The federal district court granted remand, finding "itself in agreement with the decisions characterizing a post-removal amount-in-controversy stipulation as a clarification permitted by St.