Laserfiche WebLink
9. Barker's Notice of Removal makes only conclusory statements that the <br />value of the entry right to perform reclamation work required by the Act <br />"is in excess of $75,000." (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 5 and 7.) <br />10. Barker's Notice of Removal does not allege any underlying facts to <br />establish that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the <br />statutory minimum of $75,000. <br />ARGUMENT <br />I. BARKER'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL IS DEFECTIVE <br />Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption <br />against the existence of federal jurisdiction. Basso v: Utah Power & Light Co., 495 <br />F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). Removal statutes are therefore strictly construed, and <br />ambiguities are resolved in favor of remand. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 251 <br />F.3d 1284, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2001). "If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the <br />party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence," and federal <br />courts will "presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party <br />invoking federal jurisdiction." Karnes v. The Boeing Co., 335 F.3d 1189, 1193 and <br />1194 (10th Cir. 2003). <br />The amount in controversy is ordinarily determined "by the allegations of the <br />complaint, or, where they are not diapositive, by the allegations in the notice of <br />removal." Lonnquist v. J.C. Penny Co., 421 F.2d 597, 599 (10th Cir. 1970). "The <br />burden is on the party requesting removal to set forth, in the notice of removal itself, <br />-3- <br />