Dart Cherokee Basin, et al. v. Owens, Brandon W.

Whether a party seeking removal from state court to federal court is required to provide evidence of federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal?

Petitioners removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Respondent challenged the notice of removal and moved to remand the case to state court. The district court granted Respondent's motion despite the fact that Petitioner had submitted proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $8.2 million. The district court ruled that the notice of removal was inadequate. Although Petitioners offered a calculation showing a potential liability that exceeded the monetary requirement to move to federal court, the district court reasoned that in the Notice of Removal the Petitioners failed to provide evidence supporting their calculations. Therefore, without the supporting evidence, the allegations of the Petition and Notice of Removal did not establish the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

Petitioners appealed in a Petition for Rehearing En Banc to the Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, and Petitioners appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Petitioners argue that the Tenth Circuit is the only circuit with the requirement that the notice of removal include the evidence supporting federal jurisdiction, and that the Tenth Circuit precedent is contrary to the plain language of the removal statutes, The Class Action Fairness Act, and the Supreme Court's precedent. The Supreme Court will hear the case on the issue of whether a party seeking removal from state court to federal court is required to provide evidence of federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal.