JSH Reporter Summer 2016 - Page 5

UNDER DART, A PLAINTIFF CONTESTING THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL THRESHOLD HAS NOT BEEN MET MUST NOW COME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS NOT PRESENT. Dart, Slip. Op., at 6. The Court concluded by enunciating the standard for determining the sufficiency of a defendant’s removal notice: In sum, as specified in § 1466(a), a defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446(c)(2) (B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation. Id. at 7. It is unlikely that a Federal District Court, in determining whether to remand to State Court, will find Dart dispositive of the jurisdictional amount issue. But it is one more argument to bolster an opposition to a remand motion. Under Dart, a Plaintif