Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens

Case Updates

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, holding that a defendant’s notice of removal of a case from state to federal court need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold; it does not need to contain evidentiary submissions.

In its brief, the Chamber asked the Supreme Court to reverse the district court’s decision to clarify that a defendant removing a suit to federal court is not required to proffer evidence with the notice of removal in order to prove jurisdictional facts. The Chamber pointed out that no federal court of appeals outside of the Tenth Circuit has engrafted such a requirement onto the federal rules. Nonetheless, the district court, relying on Tenth Circuit precedent, expressly adopted such a requirement in this case, and by declining to grant discretionary review, the Tenth Circuit effectively condoned the district court’s approach. The Chamber argued that these courts erred for several reasons. First, the district court’s decision imposes a burden that was never intended by the removal statute and that might never be corrected absent immediate review. Second, the result below contravenes Congress’s intent in enacting CAFA because the decision the below would significantly undercut Congress’s expansion of federal jurisdiction over interstate class actions as well as its overarching goal of eliminating abusive plaintiff practices that evade federal jurisdiction.

John H. Beisner, Jessica D. Miller and Geoffrey M. Wyatt of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center in this case.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Retail Litigation Center, National Federation of Independent Business, and Business Roundtable.

In its brief, the Chamber asked the Supreme Court to grant cert. and reverse the district court’s decision to clarify that a defendant removing a suit to federal court is not required to proffer evidence with the notice of removal in order to prove jurisdictional facts. The Chamber pointed out that no federal court of appeals outside of the Tenth Circuit has engrafted such a requirement onto the federal rules. Nonetheless, the district court, relying on Tenth Circuit precedent, expressly adopted such a requirement in this case, and by declining to grant discretionary review, the Tenth Circuit effectively condoned the district court’s approach. The Chamber argued that these courts erred for several reasons. First, the district court’s decision imposes a burden that was never intended by the removal statute and that might never be corrected absent immediate review. Second, the result below contravenes Congress’s intent in enacting CAFA because the decision the below would significantly undercut Congress’s expansion of federal jurisdiction over interstate class actions as well as its overarching goal of eliminating abusive plaintiff practices that evade federal jurisdiction.

John H. Beisner, Jessica D. Miller and Geoffrey M. Wyatt of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the National Chamber Litigation Center in this case.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the Retail Litigation Center, National Federation of Independent Business, and Business Roundtable.