Paul et al v. Asbury Automotive St. Louis, LLC

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall show cause in writing, within 10 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction by providing sufficient evidence for the Court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiffs may file any opposition to defendants evidence, and/or a motion for remand, 10 days thereafter. Show Cause Response due by 1/22/2015. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/12/15. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JERRY PAUL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE ST. LOUIS,
LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV40 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This newly removed case is before me on my review for subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant removed this case to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Defendant’s notice of removal contains allegations demonstrating that the parties are
diverse and an allegation that “plaintiffs seek to recover an amount in excess of $75,000 . . . .”
To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file in the federal forum
a notice of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28
U.S.C. § 1446(a). When removal is based on diversity of citizenship, an amount-in-controversy
requirement must be met. Ordinarily, “the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or
value of $75,000.” § 1332(a). “When the plaintiff’s complaint does not state the amount in
controversy, the defendant’s notice of removal may do so.” § 1446(c)(2)(a). “[W]hen a
defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation
should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014)
(emphasis supplied). “Evidence establishing the amount in controversy is required by §

1446(c)(2)(B) only when . . . the court questions the defendant’s allegation.” Id. at 554. Here,
the Court questions defendant’s allegation regarding the amount in controversy because
plaintiffs’ state court petition does not plead an amount in damages exceeding $75,000.00, and
defendant’s Notice of Removal does not include any evidence supporting a good-faith belief that
the amount in controversy is met.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall show cause in writing, within 10
days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction by providing sufficient evidence for the Court to find, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiffs
may file any opposition to defendant’s evidence, and/or a motion for remand, 10 days
thereafter.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 12th day of January, 2015.

-2-