Court Opinion

ID: 9813659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:14:16.222442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:35.547954
License: Public Domain

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority that the value of the underlying state claim is relevant to this litigation, I do not believe that a remand to the district court is required because plaintiff insurance company has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. Buckeye Recyclers v. CHEP USA 228 F.Supp.2d 818, 821 (S.D.Ohio 2002); see also Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States, 347 F.3d *197394, 397 (2d Cir.2003) (party invoking jurisdiction of federal courts has the burden of proving by “reasonable probability” that claim is in excess of statutory jurisdictional amount). I respectfully dissent.