Opinion ID: 161121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Burden of Establishing the Amount in Controversy.

Text: 15 When a case is originally brought in federal court, the plaintiff's claimed amount is presumed to support diversity jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938). The same is not true, however, when the case has been removed from state court. 16 In a removed case, unlike a case instituted in federal court, the plaintiff chose a state rather than federal forum. Because the plaintiff instituted the case in state court, [t]here is a strong presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in order to confer jurisdiction on a federal court or that the parties have colluded to that end. 17 Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 290); see also Miera, 143 F.3d at 1340. Thus in a removed case, [t]he defendant's claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 does not enjoy the St. Paul Mercury presumption of accuracy that the plaintiff's does. Singer, 116 F.3d at 376. 18 Defendant's right to remove and plaintiff's right to choose his forum are not on equal footing; for example, unlike the rules applied when a plaintiff has filed suit in federal court with a claim that, on its face, satisfies the jurisdictional amount, removal statutes are construed narrowly; where plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand. 19 Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). 20 As the parties invoking the federal court's jurisdiction in this case, defendants bear the burden of establishing that the requirements for the exercise of diversity jurisdiction are present. See Huffman, 194 F.3d at 1079. We have held that [t]he amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the allegations of the complaint, or, where they are not dispositive, by the allegations in the notice of removal. Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873. In this case, the complaint itself does not specify the amount of damages requested. Indeed, defendants in their notice of removal observe that [t]he amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, cannot be determined from the face of the complaint. Aplt. App., doc. 4 at 2. When, as here, the plaintiff's damages are unspecified, courts generally require that a defendant establish the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); Singer, 116 F.3d at 376; United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Prop. Meridan Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir. 1994); Gafford v. General Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993); Varella v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, Inc., 86 F. Supp.2d 1109, 1111 (D. N.M. 2000); see also McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (party asserting jurisdiction must prove jurisdictional prerequisites by a preponderance of evidence). 2 21 Although this court has not expressly adopted the preponderance standard in these circumstances, we have stated that the requisite amount in controversy must be affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or the removal notice. Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873 (emphasis added). The italicized language requires at a minimum that the jurisdictional amount be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Because, as we discuss below, we conclude that defendants have failed to meet this burden, we need not decide whether a more stringent one should be applied.