New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Removal — If Complaint Seeks Nonmonetary Relief, Notice of Removal Need Only Plausibly Allege That Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 — Valuing Injunctive Relief from Plaintiff’s vs. Defendant’s Viewpoint (Circuit Split)

Download PDF

Heartland Mt. Airy of Cincinnati OH., LLC v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18688 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2015):

Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction by filing an action in federal court, the amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). If an action is originally filed in state court, a defendant may remove the case to federal court and invoke federal jurisdiction by filing a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds [*4]  for removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). If the plaintiff's state court complaint demanded a specific amount of monetary damages, "the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy" for purposes of determining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). When the plaintiff's complaint seeks nonmonetary relief, the defendant's notice of removal may state the amount in controversy. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(i).

The statutory language in § 1446(a) that the defendant must file a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" purposefully "tracks the general pleading requirement stated in Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 553. Just as a federal court should accept a plaintiff's good faith allegation of the amount in controversy, the removal statute instructs that "a defendant's notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold." Id. at 554. Accordingly, a removing "defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court." Id. at 553.

The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 amended § 1446 and "clarifies the procedure in order when a defendant's assertion of the amount in [*5]  controversy is challenged." Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 553. Section 1446(c)(2)(B) provides that "removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted" in the notice of removal "if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds" $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 553-54.

When the defendant's amount-in-controversy allegation is challenged, "[e]vidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2)(B)" and "both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met." Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 553-54. The statutory amendments clarify that "defendants do not need to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement has been met," but when the amount in controversy is disputed "the district court must make findings of jurisdictional fact to which the preponderance standard applies." Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 554 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-10, at 16 (2011)).

"The burden of persuasion for establishing diversity jurisdiction . . . remains on the party asserting it" and "[w]hen challenged on allegations of jurisdictional facts, the parties must support their allegations by competent proof." Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96-97 (2010). When federal jurisdiction [*6]  is invoked by the filing of a notice of removal, it is the defendant who bears "the burden of demonstrating by competent proof that the complete-diversity and amount-in-controversy requirements are met." Cleveland Hous. Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 621 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the defendant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 when the plaintiff challenges the amount alleged in the notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); Dart Cherokee, 135 S. Ct. at 553-54.2

In actions seeking injunctive relief, "the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation." Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). The Court of Appeals has recognized that "there is a circuit split as to whether a court may determine the amount in controversy from the perspective of either party (the 'either viewpoint rule') or whether a court may only consider the plaintiff's viewpoint." Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818, 829 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 383 F.3d 495, 503 n.1 (6th Cir. 2004)). If the value is measured from the perspective of the defendant, the court must determine the "expected cost to the defendant of complying with the injunction which the plaintiffs seek." Olden, 383 F.3d at 503 n.1. The value of injunctive relief from the plaintiff's viewpoint is "the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented." Reusser v. Saxon Mortgage Servs., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-87, 2012 WL 3241973, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2012) (quoting Goldsmith v. Sutherland, 426 F.2d 1395, 1398 (6th Cir. 1970)). Reasonable attorney's fees may be included in determining the amount in controversy when allowed by statute. Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 561 F.3d 623, 630 n.5 (6th Cir. 2009).

2  See also H.R. Rep. 112-10, [*7]  at 16 ("If the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount exceeds $75,000, the defendant, as proponent of Federal jurisdiction, will have met the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts.").

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice