[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
June 5, 2006
No. 06-12430 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-22927-CV-DLG
LESLIE MIEDEMA
individually and on behalf of all others
similiarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAYTAG CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 5, 2006)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
WILSON, Circuit Judge:
We previously accepted Defendant-Appellant Maytag Corporation’s petition
for permission to appeal, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”),
Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.),
from the district court’s order granting Plaintiff-Appellee Leslie Miedema’s motion
to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Maytag contends that
the district court erred by placing the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction
on Maytag and resolving all doubts in favor of remand. Maytag further objects
that, even if it did have this burden, the district court applied too high a standard of
proof with respect to CAFA’s amount in controversy requirement. Finally, Maytag
claims that the district court erroneously relied upon a post-removal amended
complaint in reaching its decision. After careful review of the record and the
briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
In October of 2005, Leslie Miedema filed a class action suit against Maytag
in Florida state court, alleging that various “ranges/ovens” designed and
manufactured by Maytag contained a defective motorized door latch assembly that
allowed heat to escape and damage other range/oven components. Specifically,
Miedema pleaded that she brought her action “on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers of [Maytag] ranges/ovens that incorporate the
defective motorized door latch assembly, as a statewide class action, pursuant to
2
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(b)(2) or (b)(3).” She included in the putative class “[a]ll
purchasers of Maytag ranges/ovens, in the State of Florida, bearing [certain model
numbers],” and stated her belief that there were “thousands of members of the
above-described class.” Miedema asserted causes of action for negligence, breach
of express warranty, and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, demanding “compensatory damages, [] pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and any and all such further relief to which she is entitled.”
Within a month of being served with Miedema’s complaint, Maytag filed a
notice of removal in federal district court, invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441,
1446, and 1453. According to Maytag, the class action was removable under
CAFA because Miedema and Maytag were of diverse citizenship, the putative
class consisted of thousands of Floridians, and the amount in controversy
exceeded, in the aggregate, $5,000,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453(a), (b).
In support of its claim regarding the amount in controversy, Maytag submitted a
declaration by its information analyst Jodi Jarrett. Jarrett declared that she had
researched those range/oven models identified in Miedema’s description of the
putative class, that a total of 6,729 ranges/ovens bearing the alleged model
numbers had been sold in Florida, and that the total value of those ranges/ovens
was $5,931,971.
3
Miedema responded by moving to remand for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. She argued that Maytag had the burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, and that Maytag had failed to
carry that burden with respect to the amount in controversy. For example,
Miedema stated, Jarrett’s declaration did not specify whether each of the 6,729
ranges/ovens sold incorporated the allegedly defective motorized door latch
assembly at issue, what Maytag meant by “total value,” or how that “total value”
was calculated. Maytag opposed the motion to remand, arguing, among other
things, that any vagueness in its determination of the amount in controversy was
due to the breadth of Miedema’s complaint. The district court, noting the
existence of disagreement among courts as to which party bears the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, ordered additional briefing on
the issue, as well as on whether the requisite amount in controversy had been
established. Miedema then proceeded to depose Jodi Jarrett, and submitted this
deposition as additional evidence of Maytag’s failure to establish that more than
$5,000,000 was in controversy.
After receiving the parties’ additional submissions, the district court issued
an order granting Miedema’s motion to remand for lack of subject matter
4
jurisdiction.1 The district court adhered to the traditional rule in the CAFA context
that a removing defendant bears the burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction. The court then determined that Maytag did not satisfy that burden,
finding that the Jarrett declaration and deposition were “flawed” in this regard.
Although Miedema also contributed to the uncertainty surrounding the amount in
controversy, the court noted, it must ultimately resolve all doubts in favor of
remand. We granted Maytag’s subsequent petition for permission to appeal the
remand order, see 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c), and now reach the merits of that appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the district court’s decision to remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 11th Cir. 2006, __ F.3d __, slip
op. at 2275 (No. 06-11974, May 22, 2006); see 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1)
(notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), court of appeals may review remand order
where case was removed under CAFA).
III. DISCUSSION
A. CAFA Review of Remand Orders
1. 7-Day Application Rule
The CAFA permits a court of appeals to accept an application to appeal if
1
The district court’s order also denied all other pending motions as moot and
administratively closed the case.
5
the application is made to the court of appeals “not less than 7 days after entry of
the [district court’s] order” granting or denying a motion to remand a class action
to the state court from which it was removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1) (emphasis
added). Several circuits have declined to read the “not less than” language
literally, concluding that it was a typographical error, or that such a reading would
be illogical. See Pritchett v. Office Depot, Inc. 420 F.3d 1090, 1093 n.2 (10th Cir.
2005) (“The statute should read that an appeal is permissible if filed ‘not more
than’ seven days after entry of the remand order.”); Amalgamated Transit Union
Local 1309, AFL-CIO v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., 435 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th
Cir. 2006) (following Pritchett and also excluding, in calculating the 7-day period,
intermediate weekends and holidays under Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2)); cf. Patterson
v. Dean Morris, L.L.P., 444 F.3d 365, 368 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). While we have not
addressed this issue directly, it is clear that we did not read § 1453(c)(1) literally in
Evans, where we stated that § 1453(c)(1) “provides for an ‘application’ to the court
of appeals . . . within 7 days of the district court’s remand order.” Evans, __ F.3d
at __, slip op. at 2275 (emphasis added). We now reaffirm that construction of
§ 1453(c)(1), for to read it literally would produce an absurd result: there would be
a front-end waiting period (an application filed 6 days after entry of a remand order
would be premature), but there would be no back-end limit (an application filed
6
600 days after entry of a remand order would not be untimely). When applying the
plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language “produces a result that is not just
unwise but is clearly absurd, another principle comes into the picture. That
principle is the venerable one that statutory language should not be applied literally
if doing so would produce an absurd result.” Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120
F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir. 1997). Here, the district court’s remand order was
entered on April 4, 2006. Maytag filed its petition for permission to appeal (i.e., its
“application”) with the circuit clerk on April 12, 2006–six days later, when the
intervening weekend is excluded under Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2). Accordingly,
there was no violation of § 1453(c)(1) when we granted Maytag’s petition.
2. 60-Day Review Limit
The CAFA requires us to “complete all action on [this] appeal, including
rendering judgment, not later than 60 days after the date on which such appeal was
filed, unless an extension is granted . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2).2 In granting
Maytag’s petition for permission to appeal, we directed the parties to address the
question of “whether the sixty-day period is measured from the date the petition is
filed, or instead is measured from the date of entry of this order.” Evans, however,
2
If a final judgment on the appeal is not issued before the end of the 60-day period, plus
any extension of that period under § 1453(c)(3), then “the appeal shall be denied.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1453(c)(4).
7
has now decided that issue, holding that “the 60-day period begins to run from the
date when the court of appeals granted the appellants’ application to appeal and
thus filed the appeal.” __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 2275. We granted Maytag’s
petition for permission to appeal on April 25, 2006. Thus, so long as our ruling on
this appeal is issued within 60 days of that date (assuming no extension is granted),
our ruling is timely.
B. Burden of Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The CAFA authorizes removal of a “class action” in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1446,3 “without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State
in which the action is brought, except that such action may be removed by any
defendant without the consent of all defendants.” 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b). A “class
action” includes a civil action which, like Miedema’s, is filed under a “State . . .
rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more
representative persons as a class action.” Id. § 1332(d)(1). “Under CAFA, federal
courts [] have original jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and there is minimal diversity (at least one
plaintiff and one defendant are from different states).” Evans, __ F.3d at __, slip
3
The one-year limitation in § 1446(b), however, does not apply. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b).
8
op. at 2276 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)).4
Maytag contends that the district court, in evaluating Miedema’s motion to
remand, erred by applying the traditional rule that the removing defendant bears
the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Maytag concedes “[t]he text
of CAFA does not address which party has the burden of proof in establishing
federal jurisdiction when a class action is removed to federal court,” but argues the
legislative history expresses a clear intent to require that an objecting plaintiff
demonstrate removal was improvident, i.e., that all applicable jurisdictional
requirements were not met. Specifically, Maytag points to language in the Senate
Committee Report:
If a purported class action is removed pursuant to these jurisdictional
provisions, the named plaintiff(s) should bear the burden of
demonstrating that the removal was improvident (i.e., that the
applicable jurisdictional requirements are not satisfied). And if a
federal court is uncertain about whether “all matters in controversy” in
a purported class action “do not in the aggregate exceed the sum or
value of $5,000,000,” the court should err in favor of exercising
jurisdiction over the case.
S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 42 (2005), as reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 40; see
also 151 Cong. Rec. H723, H727 (2005) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner) (“If a
4
While this grant of jurisdiction does not apply to a class action in which “the number of
members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is less than 100,” see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(5)(B), there is no claim that this language describes the instant case. Indeed, the
complaint and notice of removal both indicate that the putative class numbers in the thousands.
9
purported class action is removed under these jurisdictional provisions, the named
plaintiff(s) should bear the burden of demonstrating that removal was improper.
And if a federal court is uncertain about whether the $5 million threshold is
satisfied, the court should err in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case.”).
Thus, Maytag concludes, the district court should have placed the burden on
Miedema to prove that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.
We disagree. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have, in detailed opinions,
rejected the very kind of argument Maytag now presents. See Brill v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that CAFA’s “naked
legislative history” does not alter the well established rule that a proponent of
subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of persuasion on the amount in
controversy); Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 686 (9th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam) (“CAFA’s silence, coupled with a sentence in a legislative committee
report untethered to any statutory language, does not alter the longstanding rule
that the party seeking federal jurisdiction on removal bears the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction.”). In Evans–which was decided after the instant case
was fully briefed–this Circuit agreed with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits that
“CAFA does not upset the traditional rule that the removing party bears the burden
of proof with regard to establishing federal court jurisdiction.” __ F.3d at __, slip
10
op. at 2278. Moreover, this Circuit previously explained that, “‘[w]hile a
committee report may ordinarily be used to interpret unclear language contained in
a statute, a committee report cannot serve as an independent statutory source
having the force of law.’” United States v. Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.
1993) (en banc) (quoting Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 474 v.
NLRB, 814 F.2d 697, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1987)); cf. Rural Electrification Admin. v
Cent. La. Elec. Co., 354 F.2d 859, 865 (5th Cir. 1966) (“Certainly, the demands of
Congressional Committees do not have the force of law.”). Thus, “‘courts have no
authority to enforce principles gleaned solely from legislative history that has no
statutory reference point.’” Thigpen, 4 F.3d at 1577 (quoting Int’l Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, 814 F.2d at 712).5
For similar reasons, we also reject Maytag’s argument, based on the
legislative history described above, that the district court should have resolved any
doubts about the amount in controversy in favor of finding jurisdiction. As with
the burden of proof, CAFA itself is silent on the matter. The rule of construing
removal statutes strictly and resolving doubts in favor of remand, however, is well-
5
Maytag cites Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S. Ct. 2223,
2228, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974) (“Although the [Equal Pay] Act is silent on this point, its legislative
history makes plain that the Secretary has the burden of proof on this issue, as both of the courts
below recognized.”). Corning Glass Works, however, does not actually stand for the proposition
Maytag urges–that legislative history, coupled with statutory silence, is sufficient to override an
already existing, well-established rule allocating the burden of proof to a removing defendant.
11
established. See, e.g., Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108, 61
S. Ct. 868, 872, 85 L. Ed. 1214 (1941) (“[T]he policy of the successive acts of
Congress regulating the jurisdiction of federal courts is one calling for the strict
construction of [removal statutes].”); Syngenta Crop. Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537
U.S. 28, 32, 123 S. Ct. 366, 369, 154 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2002) (“[S]tatutory procedures
for removal are to be strictly construed.”); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d
1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[R]emoval statutes are construed narrowly; where
plaintiff and defendant clash about jurisdiction, uncertainties are resolved in favor
of remand.”); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir.
1999) (“[A]ll doubts about jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to
state court.”). Statements in CAFA’s legislative history, standing alone, are a
insufficient basis for departing from this well-established rule. See Thigpen, 4 F.3d
at 1577; cf. Abrego, 443 F.3d at 686; Brill, 427 F.3d at 448.
Maytag contends that adherence to these well-established rules runs contrary
to “one of the overriding purposes” of CAFA, which Maytag characterizes as
“fix[ing] the flaw in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and throw[ing] open the doors of the federal
judiciary to defendants who are sued in state court class actions.” 6 While the text
6
In fact, § 2(b) of CAFA describes its purposes as follows: (1) “[to] assure fair and
prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims; (2) “[to] restore the intent of the
framers of the United States Constitution by providing for federal court consideration of
interstate cases of national importance under diversity jurisdiction; and (3) “[to] benefit society
12
of CAFA plainly expands federal jurisdiction over class actions and facilitates their
removal, “[w]e presume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of
established principles of state and federal common law, and that when it wishes to
deviate from deeply rooted principles, it will say so.” United States v. Baxter Int’l,
Inc., 345 F.3d 866, 900 (11th Cir. 2003); see White v. Mercury Marine, Div. of
Brunswick, Inc., 129 F.3d 1428, 1434-35 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Congress is assumed
to act with the knowledge of existing law and interpretations when it passes new
legislation.”). For example, Congress inserted language into CAFA that clearly
suspends the well-established rule of unanimity 7 for purposes of class action
removals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) (stating that a class action “may be removed by
any defendant without the consent of all defendants”); Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at
681 (noting that § 1453 overrides the judicially developed requirement that each
defendant consent to removal). Likewise, Congress expressly imposed a special
“rule of construction” on CAFA’s provisions requiring that certain state and
federal officials be notified of proposed class action settlements. See 28 U.S.C. §
1715(f) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the authority of, or
by encouraging innovation and lowering consumer prices.” 28 U.S.C. § 1711 note.
7
“The unanimity requirement mandates that in cases involving multiple defendants, all
defendants must consent to removal.” Russell Corp. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 264 F.3d 1040,
1044 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 247-48, 20 S.
Ct. 854, 855, 44 L. Ed. 1055 (1900) (deriving from a removal statute the rule that all defendants
must join in removal)).
13
impose any obligations, duties, or responsibilities upon, Federal or State
officials.”). Thus, Maytag’s generalized appeals to CAFA’s “overriding purpose”
are unavailing in the face of CAFA’s silence on the traditional, well-established
rules that govern the placement of the burden of proof and the resolution of doubts
in favor of remand.8
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err by
placing the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction on Maytag, or by
invoking the rule that doubts are to be resolved in favor of remand.
C. Amount in Controversy
1. Standard of Proof
Maytag contends that, in order to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to
the amount in controversy (minimal diversity is not in dispute), the district court
erroneously required it to “prove with certainty” the following: (1) “how many of
the ovens listed in [Miedema’s] complaint were actually defective”; (2) “the
8
Notably, the standards urged by Maytag would leave courts with lingering doubts about
the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The mere fact that a plaintiff failed to prove that
subject matter jurisdiction did not exist, for example, would not necessarily mean that subject
matter jurisdiction did exist. As a result, class actions could conceivably proceed through
removal, an initial 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c) appeal, discovery, and perhaps even summary judgment
or trial before it became apparent that subject matter jurisdiction was in fact lacking. Such a
result is difficult to reconcile with CAFA’s apparent concern for the swift resolution of disputes
over federal jurisdiction, as evidenced by the 7-day and 60-day deadlines imposed by § 1453(c).
Cf. Brill, 427 F.3d at 447 (“[I]t is not enough to file a pleading and leave it to the court or the
adverse party to negate jurisdiction.”).
14
number of ovens located in Florida”; and (3) “the price that each Florida customer
paid for their Maytag oven.” Such a high standard of proof, Maytag argues,
essentially renders it impossible for manufacturers to meet CAFA’s amount in
controversy requirement. The district court, however, did not purport to require
that Maytag prove the requisite amount in controversy “with certainty.” To the
contrary, the district court properly invoked the rule that “[w]here, as here, the
plaintiff has not pled a specific amount of damages, the removing defendant must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional requirement.” Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316,
1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). To determine whether this standard is
met, a court first examines whether “it is facially apparent from the complaint that
the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Id. As the
district court recognized, it is not facially apparent from Miedema’s complaint that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Cf. id. at 1320 (generalized claims
for various types of damages did not establish “that the amount in controversy
more likely than not exceeds $75,000”). “If the jurisdictional amount is not
facially apparent from the complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal
and may require evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case
was removed.” Id. at 1319. The district court likewise performed this inquiry, and
15
resolved the matter in favor of remand. Thus, Maytag’s real dispute is not with the
“standard of proof” per se, but the district court’s assessment of the evidence.
2. Evidence
In order to establish the amount in controversy, Maytag’s notice of removal
relied upon Jodi Jarrett’s declaration that “a total of 6,729 of the models of
ranges/ovens identified in paragraph 22 of the Complaint were sold in Florida,”
and “[t]he total value of those ranges/ovens is $5,931,971.” The district court
identified several problems with these claims:
Paragraph 21 of the complaint makes clear that Plaintiff is only
pursuing relief “on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers of Maytag ranges/ovens that incorporate the defective
motorized latch assembly, as a statewide class action.” (Emphasis
added). Contrary to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff did not claim that
all of the ranges/oven[s] of the models identified in paragraph 22
contained the defect. The affidavit attached to the Notice of Removal
fails to confirm that each of the 6,729 units had the defective motorized
door latch assembly. Instead, the affidavit only claims that “6,729 of
the models of ranges/ovens identified in paragraph 22 of the Complaint
were sold in Florida.” Paragraph 22 of the complaint is a list of the
model numbers at issue. Further, the affidavit fails to define what is
meant by the “total value” of those ranges/ovens.
Maytag challenges this analysis, noting that paragraph 22 of Miedema’s original
complaint simply identifies the putative class as “[a]ll purchasers of Maytag
ranges/ovens, in the State of Florida,” that bear any of the listed model numbers.
(emphasis added). When considered in conjunction with paragraph 21 of the
16
original complaint, Maytag argues, paragraph 22 necessarily implies that every
range/oven which bears one of the listed model numbers and was purchased in
Florida contains the motorized latch assembly alleged to be defective. The district
court, Maytag suggests, must have confused paragraph 22 of Miedema’s original
complaint with paragraph 22 of her post-removal amended complaint, which
identifies the putative class as “all purchasers of Maytag ranges/ovens, in the State
of Florida, which contain the allegedly defective motorized door latch assembly”
and bear any of the listed model numbers. (emphasis added). This new class
definition would better support the district court’s reasoning, but may not be
considered for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction. See Burns, 31
F.3d at 1097 n.13 (“Jurisdictional facts are assessed on the basis of plaintiff’s
complaint as of the time of removal.”); Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319 (“[A] district
court may properly consider post-removal evidence in determining whether the
jurisdictional amount was satisfied at the time of removal.”) (emphasis added).
While we are not persuaded that the district court did in fact rely upon
paragraph 22 of the post-removal amended complaint, we agree that, under the
most logical reading of the original complaint, Miedema was alleging that all of the
listed range/oven models sold in Florida contained the alleged defective motorized
latch assembly. Thus, the district court should not have faulted Maytag for
17
“fail[ing] to confirm that each of the 6,729 units had the defective motorized door
latch assembly.” Notwithstanding this error, we agree with the district court that
Maytag did not establish the requisite amount in controversy by a preponderance
of the evidence.
As the district court pointed out, Jarrett’s declaration offered no explanation
as to how she arrived at the conclusion that the 6,729 range/oven units had a “total
value” of $5,931,971. It appears from Jarrett’s deposition that she was provided
with the most recent manufacturer’s suggested retail price (“MSRP”) for each
model type at issue, but it is unclear whether those MSRPs would in any way
reflect the compensatory damages, interest, and costs that Miedema seeks.
Furthermore, Jarrett’s statement that 6,729 of the range/oven models at issue were
“sold” in Florida is not based on actual sales data. As Jarrett’s deposition reveals,
that figure is merely a guess based on (1) Maytag’s receipt of a total of 2,943
product registrations from Florida consumers for the range/oven models at issue,
and (2) Maytag’s estimate that, nationwide, only about 43.6% of the units it
manufactures are registered by consumers. Even if we assume that this kind of
estimation is reliable, it presumes that the rate of registration by Florida consumers
closely parallels Maytag’s national average.9
9
The district court also found it significant that Maytag’s calculation of the amount in
controversy did not account for the effect of any applicable statutes of limitations. When
18
Given the particular facts and circumstances of the instant case, the district
court did not err when it found that “great uncertainty” remained about the amount
in controversy, resolved that uncertainty in favor of remand, and concluded that
Maytag had not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5,000,000. Accordingly, remand for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction was appropriate.
IV. CONCLUSION
In resolving the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court
properly placed the burden of proof on the Maytag, the removing party, and did not
err by applying the principle that doubts about jurisdiction are to be resolved in
favor of remand. Furthermore, the district court did not err when it concluded
Maytag had not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5,000,000, as required by CAFA. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the district court.
Unless held by an active judge of this court, the mandate shall issue on June
22, 2006.
AFFIRMED.
determining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes, however, courts cannot look
past the complaint to the merits of a defense that has not yet been established. See Johns-
Manville Sales Corp. v. Mitchell Enters., Inc., 417 F.2d 129, 131(5th Cir. 1969) (although state
statute of limitations might in fact bar plaintiff from recovering a sum sufficient to trigger the
jurisdictional threshold,“this is a factual issue requiring an adjudication on the merits of this
case,” and the availability of the defense, even if apparent on the face of the complaint, “does not
operate to deprive the federal court of jurisdiction”).
19