Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
The defendant's removal petition was predicated on CAFA, but the district court remanded because the petition contained only allegations, and not evidence, that the requirements for federal removal jurisdiction -- namely, the $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement -- had been satisfied. Owens v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 2013 WL 2237740 (D. Kan. May 21, 2013). The Tenth Circuit denied permission to appeal.
Four judges dissented from the ensuing order denying en banc rehearing. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 730 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2013). The dissenting opinion by Judge Hartz begins:
This court owes a duty to the bench and bar to provide guidance regarding the procedural requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Yet it has let stand a district-court decision that will in effect impose in this circuit requirements for notices of removal that are even more onerous than the code pleading requirements that I had thought the federal courts abandoned long ago.
Id. at 1234.
SCOTUSblog's case page has links to the cert. petition and other filings.