home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news
contact
 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT

Mayer Brown's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community. We also email the Docket Report to our subscribed members and if you don't already subscribe to the Docket Report and would like to, please click here.

October Term 2013 - April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:


Federal Jurisdiction—Class Action Fairness Act—Sufficiency of Jurisdictional Allegations in Removal Notice

To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, to decide whether a notice of removal must also include evidence supporting jurisdiction if the facts establishing jurisdiction do not appear on the face of the state-court complaint. The Court’s resolution of this issue will be important to all businesses seeking to remove state-court lawsuits—and especially state-court class actions—to the federal courts.

Owens, the plaintiff in Dart Cherokee, filed a class action in Kansas state court seeking to recover oil and gas royalties, but did not specify the amount sought. The defendants responded by filing a notice of removal that invoked the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The notice alleged that the royalties at issue exceeded $8.2 million, and thus satisfied the CAFA’s $5 million jurisdictional minimum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). When Owens moved to remand the suit to state court, the defendants filed a declaration supporting the jurisdictional facts alleged in their notice of removal. Relying on Tenth Circuit precedent, the district court remanded the case on the ground that the defendants had not “establish[ed] by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million” because they had “fail[ed] to incorporate any evidence supporting [their] calculation in the notice of removal, such as an economic analysis of the amount in controversy or settlement estimates.” The district court refused to consider the evidence filed with the opposition to the motion to remand, holding that the defendants “were obligated to allege all necessary jurisdictional facts in the notice of removal.” A divided panel of the Tenth Circuit denied leave to appeal; and rehearing en banc was denied by an equally divided court, over a published dissent.

According to the petition for certiorari, the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits apply a notice-pleading standard, requiring that notices of removal include allegations but not evidence.See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2008); Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2008); Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2012); Janis v. Health Net, Inc., 472 F. App’x 533, 534-35 (9th Cir. 2012); Lowery v. Al. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1217 n.73 (11th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the petition contends, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have either allowed or required district courts to consider post-notice removal evidence when deciding whether to remand. See Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 46, 51-53 (1st Cir. 2009); Bartnikowski v. NVR, Inc., 307 F. App’x 730, 732-33, 735-37, 739 (4th Cir. 2009); Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000); Harmon v. Oki Sys., 115 F.3d 477, 479-80 (7th Cir. 1997); Janis, 472 F. App’x at 534-35; Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 772-774 (11th Cir. 2010).

The correct articulation of the procedures and evidentiary burdens for seeking removal, especially under the CAFA, will be of substantial interest to any business that may prefer a federal forum to state court. Absent extensions, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners will be due on May 29, 2014, and amicus briefs in support of the respondent will be due on June 30, 2014. Any questions about this case should be directed to Donald M. Falk (+1 650 331 2030) in our Palo Alto office.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice ordinarily distributes a Docket Report when the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and a Docket Report-Decision Alert when the Court decides such a case. We hope that you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful. We welcome feedback on them, which should be addressed to the general editors, Richard B. Katskee (at rkatskee@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3222) and Brian D. Netter (at bnetter@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3339).

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed. 



 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.