The diversity jurisdiction statute and the removal statutes 1

were amended by the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), effective

February 18, 2005. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332(d)(2) & 1453; see

also Pritchett v. Office Depot, Inc., 404 F.3d 1232, 1234-35

(10th Cir. 2005).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Bernice Cameron

v. Civil No. 05-cv-153-JD

Ford Motor Credit Corp.

O R D E R

Bernice Cameron filed a class action complaint in state

court alleging that Ford Motor Credit Corporation (“FMCC”)failed

to send statutorily required notice to the appropriate credit

insurers when she and others paid off their car loans early. As

a result, she contends, she and other members of the putative

class did not receive refunds of that part of the premium which

applied to the time after their early payoffs. She seeks a

refund of FMCC’s finance charges under New Hampshire Revised

Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) 361-A:11, damages for breach of

contract under New Hampshire law, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

FMCC removed the case to this court, asserting diversity

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Cameron moves to 1

remand the case, contending that subject matter jurisdiction is

Case 1:05-cv-00153-JD Document 13 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 3
2

lacking because FMCC cannot show that the amount in controversy

exceeds $5,000,000, which is required under CAFA. 

As the removing party, the defendant has the burden of

showing that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. Danca

v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc, 185 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999). 

In a removed action, when it is disputed whether the amount in

controversy requirement is met and the complaint does not seek a

specific amount in damages, the defendant must show by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

meets or exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Evans v. Yum

Brands, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 214, 220 (D.N.H. 2004). The

defendant may meet that burden by pointing to allegations in the

complaint or by providing additional competent evidence. Id.

Under CAFA, “[t]he district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of

interest and costs, and is a class action in which - (A) any

member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different

from any defendant . . . .” § 1332(d)(2). The amount in

controversy is determined by aggregating all of the claims of the

individual class members, exclusive of interest and costs. 

§ 1332(d)(6). Cameron argues that FMCC cannot show that the

amount in controversy requirement is met in this case, but she

Case 1:05-cv-00153-JD Document 13 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 3
3

does not dispute that diversity of citizenship exists.

FMCC contends that the amount in controversy requirement is

satisfied here because the monetary value of the relief the

plaintiff class is seeking exceeds $5,000,000. To show that

amount, FMCC relies on the affidavit of Ann O. Lee, Assistant

Secretary for the FMCC. Lee states that based on her search of

FMCC records, 2,791 individuals meet the criteria for class

membership as alleged in Cameron’s complaint. She further states

that the total amount of finance charges paid by those

individuals is $6,741,854. Based on Lee’s affidavit, FMCC has

made a sufficient showing to support subject matter jurisdiction

under § 1332(d). Therefore, removal was proper. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to remand

(document no. 10) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 27, 2005

cc: Michael P. Bruyere, Esquire

Charles G. Douglas III, Esquire

Corliss S. Lawson, Esquire

Edward K. O’Brien, Esquire

John-Mark Turner, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00153-JD Document 13 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 3