Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
Decision Date | 05 November 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-16385,91-16385 |
Citation | 980 F.2d 564 |
Parties | Frank D. GAUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILES, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert E. Dickey, Clark & Dickey, Reno, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.
Victor A. Perry, Perry & Spann, Reno, Nev., for defendant-appellee.
Thomas N. Alfrey, Treece, Alfrey & Musat, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada(Reno).
Before GOODWIN, FARRIS, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
Frank D. Gaus appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mobay Corporation.1Gaus alleged breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relationships, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.We vacate the judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the state court.
On May 25, 1990, Gaus filed this action against Mobay Corporation in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada.Gaus sought damages "in excess of $10,000."On July 13, 1990, Mobay Corporation removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, relying on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332and1441(a), and alleging that "the matter in current controversy ... exceeds the sum of $50,000."
Concerned that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we issued the following order on October 26, 1992 It appears that there is a jurisdictional defect in that the appellant alleged damages in excess of $10,000.The parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental memoranda, not to exceed 5 pages, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.The memoranda shall be filed by November 5, 1992.
Gaus responded that Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) prohibits a demand for a specific amount above $10,000.Gaus alleges that the actual damages sought are "in the millions of dollars."Gaus fails to point to any pleading which supports this allegation other than the Appendix to his Summary Judgment Reply Brief.Mobay states only that Gaus's alleged damages may be a procedural error.
On November 19, 1988, pursuant to the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. No. 100-702,102 Stat. 4642(1988), Congress increased the "amount in controversy" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 from $10,000 to $50,000.The relevant portion of the act provides:
SEC. 201 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN DIVERSITY CASES
(a) Increase in Amount in Controversy to $50,000--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 1332 are each amended by striking out "$10,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$50,000".
(b) Effective Date--The amendments made by this section shall apply to any civil action commenced on or after the 180th day after the enactment of this title.
The "date of enactment" for section 201 was November 19, 1988.The "effective date" was therefore May 18, 1989.
Gaus's complaint, filed May 25, 1990, alleges damages "in excess of $10,000."The effective date of the $50,000 "amount in controversy" requirement was May 18, 1989.
We strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663(9th Cir.1988);Takeda v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818(9th Cir.1985).Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064(9th Cir.1979).
In diversity cases, where the amount in controversy is in doubt, the Supreme Court has drawn a sharp distinction between original jurisdiction and removal jurisdiction:
[I]n cases brought in the federal court ... [i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the [plaintiff's] claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal....A different situation is presented in the case of a suit instituted in a state court and thence removed.There is a strong presumption that the plaintiff has not claimed a large amount in order to confer jurisdiction on a federal court or that the parties have colluded to that end.
The "strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n. 3(9th Cir.1990);Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195(9th Cir.1988).Normally, this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement.SeeSt. Paul, 303 U.S. at 288-89, 58 S.Ct. at 590;Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363(9th Cir.1986).
If it is unclear what amount of damages the plaintiff has sought, as is true here with regard to Gaus's claim, which is governed by Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), then the defendant bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount.Garza v. Bettcher Indus., Inc., 752 F.Supp. 753, 763(E.D.Mich.1990).This principle was announced in McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785, 80 L.Ed. 1135(1936):
The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure.If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.And where they...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
In re National Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records
...of showing that a federal court would have jurisdiction from the outset; in other words, that removal was proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). To meet this burden, a defendant must overcome a "strong presumption" against removal. Id. Courts "strictly construe the ......
-
Flam v. Flam
...means that "the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court." Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case "must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the firs......
-
Aetna Us Healthcare v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
...the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000].'" Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.1992)). Analysis 1. Motion To Defendants argue that the Court should stay consideration of plaintiffs' motion for remand (and al......
-
Earth Island Inst. v. Crystal Geyser Water Co.
...first instance.’ " Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills , 889 F.3d 543, 550 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc. , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks sub......
-
Calculating Amount In Controversy For Purposes Of CAFA Jurisdiction—Ninth Circuit Takes Liberal Approach
...Impact While ordinarily there is a presumption against federal jurisdiction in typical diversity cases (see, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992)), Greene confirmed there is “no antiremoval presumption [in] cases invoking CAFA.” Instead, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed t......
-
Table of Cases
...F.3d 762 (2d Cir. 1995), 176 Gandolfo’s Deli Boys, LLC v. Holman, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Ga. 2007), 214, 222, 224 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992), 86 Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414 (8th Cir. 1987), 90 Gen. Aviation v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 13 F.3d 178 (6......
-
Respond to complaint
...be determined from the complaint, it is the defendant’s burden to prove facts supporting the jurisdictional amount. Gaus v. Miles, Inc. , 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). A conclusory statement in the notice of removal is insu൶cient. If the complaint does not state an amount in controvers......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Peter, 591 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 2010): 21.6(3)(a), 21.7(2) Garber v. Randell, 477 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1973): 42.7(2) Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992): A.6(1)(b), A.6(6) Gautreaux v. Pierce, 743 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1984): 24.6(4)(b) Gavoni v. Dobbs House, Inc., 164 F.3d 1071 (7......
-
Appendix A
...in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional requirement. Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2002); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Practice Tip: In the Western District of Washington, the notice of removal must specifically set forth the bases for......