The US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that class action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in support of their attempts to remove a case from state to federal court. Rather, they need only include in their notice of removal a “plausible allegation” that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.
In Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., the plaintiff filed a putative class action in Kansas state court, alleging that the energy-company defendants underpaid royalties due on oil and gas leases. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), which gives federal jurisdiction over class actions only if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The defendants made the short and plain statement in their notice of removal that the alleged underpayments to putative class members totaled more than $8.2 million. In response, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court on the ground that the removal notice included no evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. The district court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that Tenth Circuit precedent required proof of the amount in controversy in the notice of removal under CAFA. The Tenth Circuit refused to review the district court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a division among the Circuits. For example, the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that alleging a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal under CAFA is sufficient. See e.g., Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2008); Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc., 528 F.3d 982, 986 (7th Cir. 2008); Hartis v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2012); Janis v. Health Net, Inc., 472 F.Appx. 533, 534-35 (9th Cir. 2012); Lowery v. Al. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1217 n.73 (11th Cir. 2007).
In a 5-4 decision, the majority of the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s notice of removal under CAFA need only include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. In reaching its conclusion, the majority relied on the wording of the removal statute itself, which merely requires a “short and plain statement” setting forth a good-faith basis supporting removal to federal court.
The Supreme Court’s decision is supported by CAFA’s legislative history as well. Specifically, the Senate report expressly stated that CAFA’s provisions should be interpreted broadly, with a strong preference that federal courts should hear interstate class actions if properly removed by any defendant.
Justice Scalia, writing for the dissent, argued that the Court should have never granted certiorari. Justice Scalia argued that it was improper for the court to decide the substantive issue concerning the sufficiency of the removal notice under CAFA, because the only question before the court was whether the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in denying defendants’ permission to appeal the District Court’s remand order.
The Court’s decision provides clarity for corporate class action defendants seeking to remove an action from state to federal court. In determining whether to remove the action to federal court, defendants can find comfort in the plain language of the removal statute requiring a “short and plain statement,” as long as defendants can assert, in good faith, that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.