BENSON LEGG, District Judge

Dear Counsel:

This is a consumer protection case. Now pending is Plaintiff Wendy Vargo's motion to remand. Docket No. 10. No hearing is necessary to decide this matter. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below, the motion is hereby GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

I. Background

The facts of this case are not in dispute. They are as follows.

Plaintiff Wendy Vargo filed her Complaint in the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County. Vargo is a citizen of Maryland, and Defendant Delaware Title Loans, Inc. ("Delaware Title") is a citizen of Delaware. Vargo alleges that Delaware Title violated Maryland law by lending to Vargo at a usurious interest rate. Vargo also seeks a declaratory judgment invalidating the loan agreement's arbitration and class action waiver provisions. Vargo's Complaint includes three counts, as follows: Violation of Maryland Interest Loan Law (Count I); Violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Count II), and Declaratory Judgment (Count III).

Delaware Title removed the case to this Court on May 18, 2010, alleging that diversity jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Subsequently, Delaware Title filed a motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. In response, Vargo filed the instant motion to remand, which became ripe on July 8, 2010.

II. Analysis

It is undisputed that Vargo's actual damages do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. Nevertheless, Delaware Title argues that in determining the amount-in-controversy, the Court must take into account the potential pecuniary impact of a declaratory judgment finding that the class action waiver is unenforceable. Delaware Title contends that the inevitable result of such a finding is that Vargo, or another plaintiff, will file a class action against Delaware Title, and that the value of that suit will exceed $75,000.

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is upon the party seeking removal. Wilson v. Republic Iron Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921). The Court must strictly construe removal jurisdiction because it raises significant federalism concerns.Shamrock Oil Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941).

In an action seeking declaratory relief, the amount-in-controversy is "measured by the value of the object of the litigation." Hunt v. Washington States Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977). Because Vargo seeks equitable relief, namely, a finding that the waiver provision is unenforceable, the Court must apply the "either-viewpoint" test to determine the value of the litigation. See Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Lally, 327 F.2d 568, 569 (4th Cir. 1964). Under this test, the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied if either the gain to the plaintiff or the cost to the defendant is greater than $75,000. Gonzalez v. Fairgale Properties Co., N.V., 241 F. Supp. 2d 512, 517 (D. Md. 2002).

Here, the cost to Delaware Title of invalidating the waiver provision is "too speculative and immeasurable to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement." Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications Electronics, Inc., 120 F.3d 216, 221-22 (11th Cir. 1997). First, there is no guarantee that Vargo or any other plaintiff will file a class action suit against Delaware Title if the waiver is declared void. Under those circumstances, Delaware Title would suffer no pecuniary loss.

Second, assuming that a class action is filed, the Court cannot say with any certainty whether that suit would satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. At present, there is no way for the Court to determine the value of the individual claims within the class or whether the claims could be aggregated to meet the $75,000 requirement.

In sum, Delaware Title has failed to establish that removal was proper, and the Court must remand the case.

Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it is an Order of this Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.