Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens

Supreme Court of the United States · 2014 · Civil Procedure

574 U.S. 81 (2014)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureRemovalClass Action Fairness ActAmount in ControversyCAFAnotice of removalshort and plain statementRule 8(a)

Facts

Owens sued Dart in Kansas state court in a putative class action alleging underpayment of royalties under oil and gas leases. The complaint sought "a fair and reasonable amount" of damages and did not state a specific amount in controversy. Dart removed under CAFA and alleged in its notice of removal that the underpayments totaled more than $8.2 million. After Owens argued the notice was deficient because it included no evidence, Dart submitted a detailed executive declaration showing an amount in controversy exceeding $11 million, but the district court remanded because it believed Tenth Circuit precedent required proof in the notice itself.

Issue

When a defendant removes a case to federal court and asserts federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy, must the notice of removal include evidence supporting that amount, or is a plausible allegation enough? Also, did the Tenth Circuit abuse its discretion in denying review of the remand order where the district court applied the contrary rule?

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), a notice of removal must contain only a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, which means a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount in controversy is required under §1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests the allegation or the court questions it, and then the court decides the issue by a preponderance of the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Velasquez filed a putative class action in Arizona state court against Red Mesa Warranty Services, LLC, alleging unlawful service fees charged to more than 2,000 customers across the Southwest. The complaint requests restitution and statutory damages but does not specify a total amount. Red Mesa removes under CAFA, and its notice states that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million based on the number of class members and the fees allegedly charged, but it attaches no affidavits or spreadsheets.

If Nora does not challenge the amount in controversy and the district court does not question it, how should the federal court rule on the sufficiency of the removal notice?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, §1446(a) requires only a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, which means a plausible allegation of the jurisdictional amount. Evidence is not required unless the plaintiff contests the allegation or the court questions it. The Court also rejected any antiremoval presumption in CAFA cases. (Derived from Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company v. Owens (2014).)