Laserfiche WebLink
nearly identical to the statement quoted above from Mazcuk. For example, Barker's <br />Notice States: <br />The entry right to perform reclamation for which Plaintiff is seeking a <br />declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in its Complaint has a value in excess <br />of $75,000. <br />(Notice of Removal at ¶ 5 see also ¶ 7.) This conclusory allegation of the amount in <br />controversy, without more, does not provide requisite facts for this court to retain <br />jurisdiction. Barker's conclusory allegations regarding the amount in controversy are <br />simply inadequate to overcome the strong presumption against a finding of removal <br />jurisdiction. <br />In certain situations, courts have examined supporting memoranda and affidavits <br />when a notice of removal does not allege jurisdictional facts on its face. "The party <br />seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his. favor must allege in his pleading the facts <br />essential to show jurisdiction. Where the pleadings are found wanting, an appellate <br />court may also review the record for evidence that diversity does exist." Penteco Corp. <br />Ltd. P'ship-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991). The <br />facts to supporting jurisdiction may be set forth "preferably in the removal notice, but <br />sometimes by affidavit." hlonneycutt, 989 F.Supp. at 1377 (citing Laughlin, supra). <br />However, this Court need not reach the question of whether the factual support offered <br />to support Barkers' allegations is sufficient, because Barkers have submitted no factual <br />support or additional evidence that the Court could look to in order to establish the <br />amount in controversy. The Barkers have simply not supported the conclusory <br />allegations made in their Notice. <br />-5- <br />