REV103394 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$1,000 annually (.when 638 acres are released from liability under the Act, an application for which is pending), Empire's Complaint also demonstrates that Empire was willing to pay $40,000 to purchase the entire fee interest in a 35.5 tract in the southeast corner of the Property. Empire also believes that there are two existing leases of surface rights covering the Property (the identical type of rights Empire claims), one which grants the right to conduct guided hunting on the Property for a payment of $5,000 per year, and one which grants the State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation certain rights of access over the Property and the right to construct campgrounds and related facilities on the Property for $1,600 per year. Copies of these ]eases are attached hereto as Attachments l and 2, respectively. In this case, all that is sought is recognition of Empire's right to enter the Property to perform the minimal remaining surface reclamation that is required by law. Exercise of this right will actually improve the condition of the Property by eliminating any remaining surface effects of coal mining. It would defy reason to find that the value of this limited right of entry is in excess of $75,000.2 CONCLUSION Because Barkers have failed to meet their burden to establish that this Court would have original diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this action is 2 Barker's Answer and Counterclaim seeking $l ]0,000 in damages for trespass is not considered for purposes of dctermining the amount in controversy because it was filed after removal to federal court. "The amount in controversy is measured as of the date of removal, a practice similar to that in original jurisdiction suits where the inquiry is directed to the time when the complaint is filed." Dresser-Rand v. Northern Nat'l Gas Co., No. 99-4165-SAC, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3214 at'6-8 (D.Kan. Jan. 19, 2000) (counterclaim filed four days after removal). -7-