Tuesday, November 13, 2007

CAFA's Amount in Controversy Requirement

Recently the Sixth and Ninth Circuits addressed issues related to the burden a defendant bears to establish that CAFA's amount in controversy requirement is met in cases removed to federal court.  Check out Smith v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. from the Sixth Circuit (holding that defendant failed to establish it was "more likely than not" that the jurisdictional amount was met where in a contract case plaintiff specifically disclaimed punitive damages altogether and compensatory damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount) and take a look at Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp. from the Ninth Circuit (holding that the defendant must establish that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied "by a preponderance of the evidence" where the plaintiffs move to remand and specifically plead that they seek damages less than the jurisdictional amount).--Counseller



| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CAFA's Amount in Controversy Requirement:


Post a comment