| Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 7, 2014 Decided December 15, 2014 | |
| Full case name | Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Brandon W. Owens |
| Docket no. | 13-719 |
| Citations | 574 U.S. 81 (more) 135 S. Ct. 547; 190 L. Ed. 2d 495; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8435; 83 U.S.L.W. 4029; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 15 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating, Co., LLC v. Owens, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 26133 (10th Cir., June 20, 2013) |
| Holding | |
| A defendant's notice of removal need not include evidence of the amount in controversy, unless the plaintiff or the court challenges the defendant's allegations | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Kennedy, Kagan; Thomas (all but final sentence) |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. §1446 | |
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the defendant's notice of removal did not need to contain evidence of the amount in controversy because congress intended for courts to "apply the same liberal rules [to removal allegations] that are applied to other matters of pleading".[1] Justice Ginsburg also held that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion by declining to review the district court's ruling.[2] Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued the Court should dismiss the case as improvidently granted because the Court had "no basis" to determine whether the Tenth Circuit denied review for an impermissible reason.[3] Justice Clarence Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which he argued the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Tenth Circuit's ruling because the decision to deny review was not a "case".[4] Although some commentators expressed concern that the Court's ruling would cause "damage to the law of review",[5] others described it as a victory for attorneys who defend against class actions.[6]
- ^ Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, no. 13-719, 574 U.S. 81, slip op. at 4-5, 7 (2015) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 100–889, p. 71 (1988) (internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original).
- ^ Dart Cherokee, slip op. at 7-14.
- ^ Dart Cherokee, slip op. at 1, 7-8 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
- ^ Dart Cherokee, slip op. at 1-2 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1254).
- ^ Ronald Mann, Opinion analysis: Court stretches to correct anachronistic Tenth Circuit pleading rule, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 16, 2014, 9:24 AM).
- ^ Patrick H. Sims, Feature: Removing Diversity Cases: The Thrill Is Gone, 76 Ala. Law. 166, 169 (2015).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search