REV103394 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LEXSEE 2002 US DIST LEXIS 15217 CITY OF ATCHISON, Plaintiff, vs. ]NACZUK INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 02-224SGTV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15217 August 14, 2002, Decided DISPOSITION: (•t] Plaintiffs motion to remand was granted. Case was retarded to the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § J447(c), Defendant was ordered to pay the just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, that Plaintiff incurted as a result of removal. CASE SUMMARY: that jurisdiction was also defeated because the corporation's counterclaim required joinder of the State of Kansas as a parry. OUTCOME: The court granted the city's motion to remand the matter to state court. The court awazded the city costs and actual expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the city as a result of the removal. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff city filed an action in state court against defendant corporation, seeking possession of property that it claimed was unlawfully occupied by the corporation. The corporation removed the case to the court, claiming that the court had original subject matte diversity jurisdiction. The city Sled a motion to remand the matter to state court OVERVIEW: The city alleged in its original complaint that the corporation wrongfully occupied property that was owned by the city. The city did not set forth a specific ambunt requested for recovery, but asked for possession of the property, costs of collection, attorney's fees, and any other just and proper relief. The city alleged in its motion for remand that dic amount in wnnoversy did not exceed the $ 75,000 jurisdictional minimum The court granted the city's motion to remind the matter to state wort. The court held that the wrporation bad the burden of proving that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional requirement The conclusory allegation in the corporation's notice that the value of the property exceeded $ 75,000 was insutU"cient to establish jurisdiction. The court noted that it could not rely on the additional materials subailtted by the corporation in supplemrntal materials when those facts were not previously raised in the corporation's notice of removal. The court did not address the citys argument LeaisNexis(R) Headnotes Civil Procedure > Removal > Postremoval Reminds [HNl] A defendant may remove a case Sled in state court only if the plaintiff mould have filed suit in federal court originally. 18 U.S.GS. § J441(a). If at any titre before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C.S. ,¢ J447(c). As the party invoking the federal court's jurisdiction, the defendant carries the burden of demonstrating that the requirements for exercising jurisdiction aze present Because the courts of the Uttited States are courts of limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against federal jurisdiction. Doubtful cases must be resolved in favor of remand. Civil Procedure > JurisdiMioe > Diversity Jurisdiction >Amount in Controversy [IIN2] In the Tenth Cvcuit, the amount in controversy is ordinarily detetttrined by the allegations of the complaint, or, where they aze not diapositive, by the allegations in the notice of removal. The defendant must set forth, in the notice of removal itself, the underlying facts supporting the assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000. The defendant must establish the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.