A defendant seeking to remove a case from state to federal court must file in the federal forum a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. §1446(a). Owens filed a putative class action in Kansas state court seeking underpaid royalties under certain oil and gas leases. Dart removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over class action suits when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). Dart’s notice of removal alleged that the purported underpayments totaled over $8.2 million. Owens moved to remand the case to 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 district court granted Owens’ remand motion. The Tenth Circuit denied review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a removal notice need only plausibly allege––not detail proof of––the amount in controversy.
Florida Attorneys Expose How Improper Influence From the Financial Industry has Contributed to the Destruction of the Negotiability of Mortgage Promis...
October 12, 2015
Jeffrey A. Myers, Bowles Fernández Law LLC, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for plaintiffs. With him on the briefs were Jeffrey A. Myers, John Bowles, a...
BRANDRUP v. RECONTRUST COMPANY BAC LP 2006 2CB
June 13, 2013
US home foreclosures continuing to fall, latest data shows