REV103394 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2002 U.S. Dist. i FXfS 15217, the subject tract and all improvements. The value of the tract and fertilizer plant clearly exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $ 75,000. Accordingly, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied" This conciusory allegation is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Honeycutt, 989 F. Supp. at 1377. Odrerwise, Defendant's notice of removal contains only two ambiguous references to monetary amounts. First, Defendant states that it acquired the Boos Brothers' interest in the Missouri River tract, as well as other property rights of the Boos Brothers, in 1977 for $ 300,000. Defendant fails, however, to outline how much of the $ 300,000 was allocated toward the Missouri River tract itself as opposed to the outer unnamed property rights or, for that matter, what the other unnamed property rights were. Second, Defendant ~*10] asserts that it has paid all taxes on the Missouri River tract for the past twenty-five years, but, again, Defendant fails to provide the court with any specific accounting of the amount of taxes paid. Defendant's ambiguous assertions fail to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that [he value of the Missouri River tract exceeds $ 75,000. The coon notes that it has reviewed the additional materials submitted by Defendant in connection widt its opposition to Plaintiffs motion to remand. As noted, however, the court cannot rely on any of the facts advanced by Defendant in its opposition if those facts were not previously raised in the notice of removal itself. Laughlin, SO F.3d at 873; see also Coca-Cola Bottling of Emporia, lne. v. South Beach Beverage Co., 198 F. Supp. 1d 1280, 1183 (D. Kan. 2001) [IiN4] ("The additional assertions and facts proffered in [Defendant's] later filed response to [Plaintiffs] action to remand are untimely; [Defendant] should have addressed the underlying facts and should have attached any supporting affidavits to its Notice of Removal,"). In sum, the court concludes that Defendant has failed to carry [*11] its burden of advancing sufficient underlying facts in its notice of removal to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of the Missouri River tract exceeds $ 75,000. Accordingly, the court remands this case to the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas foi further proceedings. B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Page 4 Plaintiff requires joinder of a party, the State of Kansas, over which the court cannot acquire jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Given the court's conclusion that remand is already appropriate due to Defendant's failure to establish the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy, the court need not address this argument C. Attorney Fees and Costs Finally, Plaintiff requests that the court awazd it the costs and attorney fees it expended in moving to remand this action to state court. [IIIdS] 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) peanits the court to awazd "just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal." As noted, Defendant failed to abide [*12] by the removal requirements imposed by Laughlin, a case which has been the law of the Tenth Circuit since 1995. As a result, the court determines that payment of Plaintiffs just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, intoned as a result of removal is appropriate in this case. IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that Plaintiffs rrtotion to remand (Doc. 8) is granted. The case is remanded to the District Court of Atchison County, Kansas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Defendant is ordered m pay the just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, that Plaintiff has incurred as a result of removal. Plaintiff shall file a Bill of Costs pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 54.1. Plaintiff must claim attorney fees incurred as a result of removal in accordance with D. Kan. Rule 54.2. The case is closed. Copies of this order shall be transmitted to wunsel of record for the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Kansas City, Kansas, this 14th day of August, 2002. G. Thomas VanBebber United Stasis Senior District Judge Plaintiff also contends that remand is appropriate because one of Defendant's counterclaims against