Laserfiche WebLink
the underlying facts supporting the assertion that the amount in controversy" exceeds <br />the statutory minimum. Laughlin v. K-Mart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.), cert. <br />denied, 516 U.S. 863 (1995). <br />Where the amount in controversy cannot be determined from the face of the <br />complaint, a notice of removal containing a "mere summary" of the relief requested <br />"does not provide the requisite facts lacking in the complaint." Martin, 251 F.3d at <br />219]. "Removal cannot be based simply upon conclusory allegations [regarding the <br />amount in controversy]." Honneycutt v. Dillard 's Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1375, 1377 <br />(D.Kan. 1977). <br />The application of these rules can be seen in the case of City of Atchinson v. <br />Mazcuk Indus., Inc., Civ. Act. No. 02-2245-GTV, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15217 at *7 <br />(D.Kan. Aug. 14, 2002}.~ That case was a declaratory judgment action where defendant <br />alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The Defendant's Notice of <br />Removal stated only that; <br />"[Plaintiff) seeks declaration that it is entitled to possession of real property <br />claiming that it has title to the subject tract and all improvements. The value of <br />the tract and fertiliser plant clearly exceed the jurisdictional minimum of <br />$75,000. Accordingly the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied." <br />Id., at *9, quoting Defendant's Notice of Removal. The Court in Mazcuk found that this <br />allegation was insuffcient to establish the amount in controversy for jurisdictional <br />purposes. <br />In the case at hand, Barker's Notice of Removal contains allegations that are <br />~ A copy of this decision is attached for the Court's convenience. <br />-4- <br />