On December 15, 2014, in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, the US Supreme Court held that a party removing a case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) does not need to provide proof of the amount in controversy in the notice of removal to avoid remand (No. 13-719, (Dec. 15, 2014)).

In this matter, the plaintiff filed a putative class action in a Kansas state court alleging that the defendant oil companies (Dart) underpaid royalties owed to putative class members under certain oil and gas leases. Stating in the notice of removal that the amount in controversy met CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, Dart removed the case to the US District Court for the District of Kansas.

The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, and argued that the notice of removal was deficient because Dart did not provide any evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. In response, Dart submitted an affidavit from an account executive providing a detailed damages calculation, which the plaintiff argued was submitted too late because a deficient notice of removal could not be cured by evidence concerning the amount in controversy submitted post-removal. The district court granted the motion to remand, reasoning that evidence presented outside of the notice of removal is not permitted to determine the amount in controversy.

Dart petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for appeal. While remand orders are generally not appealable, a court of appeals may review remand decisions in CAFA cases (28 U.S.C. §1453(c)(1)). The Tenth Circuit denied review of Dart's appeal, as well as Dart's petition for en banc review. Dart then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was granted.

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion issued below. In its opinion, the Court held that when removing a case pursuant to CAFA, a defendant's notice of removal only needs to provide a short, plain statement containing a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Only when the allegation of the amount in controversy is challenged by the plaintiff or the court must the defendant provide evidence establishing the amount in controversy. Dart had alleged in the notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, and therefore, because neither the plaintiff nor the court challenged that statement, Dart was not required to submit any further evidence.