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