United States: Facts Outside Of The Complaint And Notice Of Removal Are Irrelevant For Deciding CAFA Jurisdiction

Last Updated: May 22 2014
Article by CAFA Law Blog

Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, 2013 WL 2237740 (D. Kan. May 21, 2013).

The U.S. District Court of Kansas has held that reference to factual allegations or evidence outside of the complaint and notice of removal is not permitted to determine the amount in controversy.

The plaintiff brought an action in state court, representing a class of royalty owners who were underpaid royalties from the defendants working interest Kansas wells. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and sought compensatory damages, costs, and further relief as the court deemed just and proper. The petition did not state a specific amount of damages.

The defendant removed the action to the District Court, asserting CAFA jurisdiction and contending that the amount in controversy was in excess of $8.2 million. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to remand, and the District Court granted the motion.

The District Court stated that, in determining the amount in controversy for an action removed pursuant to CAFA, the question is not how much the plaintiff will recover but rather is an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation. The District Court further noted that the amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by either the allegations of the complaint or by the allegations in the notice of removal where the allegations of the complaint are not dispositive. If the jurisdictional amount is not shown by the allegations of the complaint, then the burden is on the removing party to set forth in the notice of removal the underlying facts supporting the assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold limit.

The District Court observed that, in McPhail v. Deere & Co., 529 F.3d 947, 956 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit held that a plaintiff cannot avoid removal merely by declining to allege the jurisdictional amount; however, in the absence of an explicit demand for more than the jurisdictional amount, the defendant must show how much is in controversy through other means such as interrogatories obtained in state court prior to the removal, affidavits, or other evidence submitted to the federal court.

In support of their calculation that the amount in controversy exceeded $8.2 million, the Owens defendants presented the declaration of Charles E. Henderson, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel. Henderson stated that these calculations showed that the plaintiff's claims for the entire class period exceeded the jurisdictional threshold. Upon service of the Petition, Henderson quantified the damages at issue based on the allegations in the petition, the claims, the class period, and the number of leases.

Assuming that the royalty paid to the plaintiff class should have been calculated on 100% of the proceeds and not 75%, using a "back of the envelope" calculation, Henderson concluded the class was underpaid by approximately $11 million. Using the same back of the envelope analysis, he further asserted that the claim for shrinkage was approximately $3.52 million. Assuming the allegations in the petition were correct, the defendants located and analyzed the actual production and sales data for the period in question and ran a formal economic analysis of the potential damages. Based on those assumptions, it was determined that the amount in controversy for the five year period prior to the filing of the petition was $8,224,798.62 and $11.86 million for the entire ten year period claimed by the plaintiff class.

Owens, however, asserted that the defendants could not meet their burden to show that it was more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, because the defendants submitted no evidence with their unsworn notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory requirement.

The District Court observed that the defendants did not submit any supporting documentation, affidavit or declaration as evidence of the amount of compensatory damages, although the defendants conceded that they had the actual production and sales data at the time of the notice of removal.

The defendants argued that the amount in controversy could be demonstrated by the allegations in the petition alone and made their calculations from those allegations, along with additional facts. The defendants relied on McPhail, contending that the court held the allegations of the complaint alone was sufficient to find the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction.

The District Court, however, observed that in McPhail, the plaintiff brought a wrongful death action. The McPhail complaint cited to the Oklahoma wrongful death statute and requested all relief enumerated therein, which provided recovery for several categories of compensatory damages alleged in the complaint, as well as punitive damages up to $100,000. The Tenth Circuit held that, given the allegations and the nature of the damages sought, the complaint on its face may be sufficient by itself to support removal. The Tenth Circuit, however, declined to decide the question based on the complaint alone because the plaintiff had incorporated correspondence between counsel in the notice of removal that demonstrated her counsel believed the amount in controversy could be in excess of $75,000.

Owen's petition, however, did not include a claim based on statutory liability or a claim for punitive damages, and the jurisdictional amount was not readily apparent from the face of the petition. Further, Owens did not attempt to limit the amount in controversy to less than the jurisdictional amount. Although the defendants stated in the notice of removal that they had undertaken to quantify the amount of additional royalties that would be owed, they failed to incorporate any evidence supporting this calculation in the notice of removal, such as an economic analysis of the amount in controversy or settlement estimates.

Accordingly, the District Court remarked that in the absence of such evidence, the general and conclusory allegations of the petition and notice of removal did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

Next, the District Court evaluated whether the defendants could rely on factual allegations to meet their jurisdictional burden which were not contained in the notice of removal but instead were subsequently submitted with their response as additional support. The District Court observed that the Tenth Circuit consistently held that reference to factual allegations or evidence outside of the petition and notice of removal was not permitted to determine the amount in controversy. The District Court noted that, although the Tenth Circuit appeared to have carved out a limited exception to this rule by holding that a party may seek limited discovery to determine the amount in controversy, it did not give any guidance on when it was appropriate to grant or deny a request. Nevertheless, in McPhail, the Tenth Circuit contemplated a situation in which the defendant had no information from which to establish the amount of damages.

 In Owens, the District Court found that discovery was not justified, because the defendants conceded in their response and Henderson's Declaration that they were aware of additional facts and data at the time of removal, but they did not allege all of these facts in their notice of removal. Further, although the McPhail court indicated that evidence of settlement proposals and estimates were permitted as a basis for establishing the amount in controversy, such was possible only when those facts were incorporated into the notice of removal.

The District Court found that, although the petition was silent on the jurisdictional amount, it had enough detail regarding the basis of the claims of the underpayment of royalties to enable defendants to use their data to calculate an amount in controversy, albeit data and/or evidence they did not include in their notice of removal. Even assuming that the defendants could establish the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the District Court concluded that the defendants were obligated to allege all necessary jurisdictional facts in the notice of removal.

Thus, because the jurisdictional facts alleged in the petition and notice of removal did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the District Court remanded the action to state court.

CAFA Law Blog

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
McGlinchey Stafford PLLC
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions