N.D. Georgia Holds Party Seeking Removal Under CAFA Has the Burden of Establishing Jurisdiction

Per Scott v. Ing Clarion Partners, LLC, 2006 WL 3191184 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2006):

As an initial matter this court must determine who has the burden of proof in establishing subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants contend that CAFA changed the tradition notion that removal is not favored and that CAFA "should be read broadly, with a strong preference that in interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed by any defendant." ING Clarion Partners, LLC's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Case and for Evidentiary Hearing at 5, quoting S.Rep. No. 109-14, at 43, 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3, 41. The defendants specifically refer to certain comments made by Representative Sensenbrenner wherein he said that the provisions strongly favor the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

The problem with this argument is that it has been specifically considered and rejected by the Eleventh Circuit. In Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2006), the Eleventh Circuit considered the legislative history of CAFA and the statements of Representative Sensenbrenner with respect to who had the burden of establishing jurisdiction and concluded that the burden remained with the person seeking removal. The court noted that a committee report could not serve as an independent statutory source having the force of law, citing United States v. Thigpen, 4 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc).

In Miedema, the court also rejected the 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." 450 F.3d at 1328. "The rule of construing removal statutes strictly and resolving doubts in favor of remand ... is well-established.... Statements in CAFA's legislative history, standing alone, are an insufficient basis for departing from this well-established rule." Id. at 1328-29. But see Evans v. Walter Industries, 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir.2006) (using the same legislative history to support its conclusion that Congress contemplated broad federal court jurisdiction).

Even though the party seeking removal has the burden of showing that the court has jurisdiction, a plaintiff seeking remand based on the local controversy exception has the burden of establishing that he falls within that exception. Evans v. Walter Industries, Inc., 449 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir.2006).