Bartnikowski v. NVR, Inc., 07CV00768 (M.D. N.C. 6/18/08)
Maybe the defendants in this case have been keeping up with the CAFA Law Blog. The defendant, NVR, Inc., argued that the burden was on the plaintiffs to show CAFA jurisdiction did not exist after the defendants removed this lawsuit.
The smart, savy defendants cited the legislative history of the statute in support of their position. But, the Court stated that the burden belongs to the removing defendants to show that CAFA jurisdiction exists, despite the comments in the legislative history. In support of its position the Court relied on decisions on the five courts of appeal that have addressed this issue and have placed the burden to show jurisdiction on the removing defendant..
The Court relied on these appellate decisions: Smith v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 401, 404-05 (6th Cir. 2007) (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Smith posted on July 7, 2008); Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1208 (11th Cir. 2007) (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Lowery posted on May 15, 2007); Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Lowdermilk posted on July 30, 2007); Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2006) (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Blockbuster posted on January 26, 2007); Morgan v. Gay, 471 F.3d 469, 473 (3d Cir. 2006) (Editors’ Note: See the CAFA Law Blog analysis of Morgan posted on January 19, 2007).
Ultimately, the Court remanded this case to state court finding that defendant did not show by a preponderance of evidence that CAFA’s amount in controversy requirements were met.
Buggs and his Beast of Burden