Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00268-WYD-BNB.
February 13, 2008
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Notice of Removal (docket #1), filed February 7, 2008. By way of background, this case arises from a motor vehicle accident where an employee of the Plaintiff, Life Care Centers of America, Inc., was allegedly injured during the course and scope of her employment when a vehicle owned by the Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle.
On February 7, 2008, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal asserting that diversity jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Defendant asserted therein that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. Further, Defendant asserted that while both Plaintiffs, Life Care Centers of America, Inc. and Old Republic Insurance are corporations licensed to do business in the State of Colorado, Defendant is a resident of Constantia, New York, and is not a citizen of Colorado.
After carefully reviewing the pleadings, I find that this case must be remanded based on the failure of the Defendant to show that the amount in controversy is satisfied. The amount in controversy is ordinarily determined by the allegations of the complaint, or, where they are not dispositive, by the allegations in the notice of removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 1284, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001); Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995). If the jurisdictional amount is not shown by the allegations of the complaint, "[t]he burden is on the party requesting removal to set forth, in the notice of removal itself, the `underlying facts supporting [the] assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].'" Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873 (quotation omitted). In other words, the amount in controversy must be affirmatively established on the face of either the petition or notice of removal. Id. The removal statute is construed narrowly. Martin, 251 F.3d at 1289.
In this case, the allegations of the complaint do not show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required to establish diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Thus, I turn to the notice of removal. The notice of removal references the civil cover sheet filed in state court contemporaneously with the complaint which represents that the "Plaintiffs are seeking a monetary judgment for more than $100,000.00 against the Defendant." Notice of Removal at 1 (citing Civil Cover Sheet, Exhibit C, ¶ 2). That is the only allegation in the notice of removal regarding the amount in controversy.
I find that the Notice of Removal and the reference therein to the civil cover sheet filed in state court are not sufficient to establish that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. A number of cases from this Court have held that reliance solely on the civil cover sheet filed in state court to establish the jurisdictional amount is insufficient, and I incorporate their reasoning herein. See Baker v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 07-cv-01106-MSK-MEH, 2007 WL 2908434, at * 3-4 (D. Colo. 2007); Ralph v. SNE Enterprises, Inc., No. 07-cv-01163-WDM-MJW, 2007 WL 1810534, 25 at *1 (D. Colo. 2007); Hardin v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., 490 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1135-36 (D. Colo. 2007); Bishelli v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., No. 07-cv-00385-WYD-MEH, 2007 WL 1455852, at *3 (D. Colo. 2007); see also Dean v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 07-cv-01030-MSK-MJW (Order Remanding Action) (October 5, 2007).
Guided by the strong presumption against removal of civil actions to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and the fact that it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, I find that this matter must be remanded to the State Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this action to the City and County of Denver District Court from which the case was removed.