Term: 2014
Docket: 13-719
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., Llc v. Owens
- Pro
13-719 DART CHEROKEE BASIN V. OWENS DECISION BELOW: 730 F.3d 1234 CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: A defendant seeking removal of a case to federal court must file a notice of removal containing "a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal" and attach only the state court filings served on such defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Consistent with that statutory pleading requirement, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits require only that a notice of removal contain allegations of the jurisdictional facts supporting removal; those courts do not require the defendant to attach evidence supporting federal jurisdiction to the notice of removal. District courts in those Circuits may consider evidence supporting removal even if it comes later in response to a motion to remand. Here, in a clean break from Section 1446(a)'s language and its sister Circuits' decisions, the Tenth Circuit let stand an order remanding a class action to state court based upon the district court's refusal to consider evidence establishing federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because that evidence was not attached to the notice of removal. (That evidence, which was not disputed, came later in response to the motion to remand.) The question presented is: 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? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-603
In the case of Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company (DCBO). The dispute centered around a class action lawsuit filed by Brandon Owens against DCBO for underpayment of royalties on oil and gas leases. DCBO sought to move the case from state court to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but was denied because it did not provide sufficient evidence proving that more than $5 million was in controversy - a requirement for CAFA jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that when removing a case from state to federal court under CAFA, defendants only need to include "a plausible allegation" that at least $5 million is at stake; they do not have to provide detailed evidence unless challenged by plaintiffs or questioned by courts.
In the dissenting opinion for DART CHEROKEE BASIN OPERATING CO., LLC v. OWENS, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Scalia and Kagan, argued that the Supreme Court should not have granted review of this case because it did not meet the criteria typically required for a writ of certiorari. The dissenters pointed out that there was no conflict among lower courts on the issue at hand - whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in its notice of removal or can simply provide a short and plain statement of grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C §1446(a). They also noted that even if such an evidentiary requirement existed and had been wrongly applied by the Tenth Circuit in this case, any error would be harmless as Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC could still present evidence supporting federal jurisdiction later in proceedings. Thus they disagreed with majority's decision to intervene at such an early stage.
