Civil Practice: Removal – Amount In Controversy – Burden Of Proof

Where plaintiff, who brought a class action against chocolate manufacturers for alleged violations of state antitrust laws, specified an amount in controversy below the jurisdictional amount, the district court erred in requiring the defendants to prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff’s claim exceeded the jurisdictional threshold because the appellate court holds that a party seeking to remove under the Class Action Fairness Act must establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence regardless of whether the complaint alleges an amount below the jurisdictional minimum.

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

Removal burden decided

“The precise burden that applies to a removing defendant in the CAFA context has not been defined in this circuit….

“Despite the Iowa prohibition on pleading damages with specificity, Bell urges us to conclude that where a complaint specifies an amount in controversy below the jurisdictional minimum, the party seeking to remove under CAFA must establish to a legal certainty that the amount claimed exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. For support, Bell relies on several other circuit decisions announcing such an elevated removal burden….

“Although disclaiming an intent to do so, by urging our adoption of the framework identified by the Ninth Circuit Bell is in effect asking this court to utilize a different removal standard in CAFA cases than in others. Requiring the manufacturers to establish jurisdictional facts by a legal certainty would force us to depart from our non CAFA precedent where we have only required a removing party to establish jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence….

“Thus, a party seeking to remove under CAFA must establish the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence regardless of whether the complaint alleges an amount below the jurisdictional minimum….

“If the manufacturers prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is satisfied, remand is only appropriate if Bell can establish that it is legally impossible to recover in excess of the jurisdictional minimum.”

Judgment is vacated and remanded.

Bell v. The Hershey Company, et al. (MLW No. 58731/Case No. 08-2458 – 10 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Murphy, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Jarvey, J. (Christopher Landau, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant; Todd A. Strother, John C. Cortesio Jr., Robert L. Fanter, Mark E. Weinhardt, Edward W. Remsburg, John Moorlach, Craig S. Primis, Angela M. Butcher, Jennifer W. Cowen, Stefan M. Meisner, Roxann E. Henry, David Marx Jr. and Dennis P. Orr appeared on the brief) (Joseph R. Gunderson, Des Moines, Iowa, argued for appellee; David E. Sharp appeared on the brief).