United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
newly-removed case is before me on my review for subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Roger Berent originally filed
this action in Missouri state court against defendant Chubb
National Insurance Company (“Chubb”), alleging
that Chubb failed to pay underinsured motorist benefits under
an insurance policy issued by Chubb after Berent sustained
injuries in a car accident. Chubb filed a Notice of Removal
to this Court on September 25, 2019, alleging diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Eighth Circuit has admonished district courts to “be
attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in
all cases.” Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d
214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). “A defendant may remove a
state law claim to federal court only if the action
originally could have been filed there.” In re
Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d 613, 619 (8th Cir.
2010) (citing Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010
(8th Cir. 2005)). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 requires an amount in controversy greater than
$75, 000 and complete diversity of citizenship among the
litigants. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
removal cases, the district court reviews the complaint or
petition pending at the time of removal to determine the
existence of subject matter jurisdiction. St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 291
(1938). The district court may also look to the Notice of
Removal to determine its jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2)(A). The removing defendant, as the party invoking
jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that all
prerequisites to jurisdiction are satisfied. Central Iowa
Power Co-op. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator,
Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 912 (8th Cir. 2009). “[A]ll
doubts about federal jurisdiction must be resolved in favor
of remand[.]” Id.
“the matter in controversy [must] excee[d] the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs[.]”
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When the plaintiff's complaint
does not state the full amount in controversy, the
defendant's Notice of Removal may do so. 28 U.S.C. §
1446(c)(2)(A). “[W]hen a defendant seeks federal-court
adjudication, the defendant's amount-in-controversy
allegation should be accepted when not contested by the
plaintiff or questioned by the court.”
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135
S.Ct. 547, 553 (2014) (emphasis added). “Evidence
establishing the amount in controversy is required by §
1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court
questions, the defendant's allegation.”
Id. at 554.
Notice of Removal cites to Berent's petition to support
its claim that the case exceeds the amount in controversy
requirement. ECF 1 at ¶ 7. Specifically, Chubb
references a “formal demand” of $1, 000, 000.00
purportedly sent to Chubb by Berent. Id. While
Berent's petition alleges that he “issued a formal
demand” to Chubb, the petition does not specify that
the demand was for $1, 000, 000.00 or any other amount, and
the demand is not attached to the petition. Petition, ECF 3
at pg. 4, ¶ 23. As Berent's petition only seeks
damages for each of the two counts, “in an amount . . .
greater than $25, 000.00, for costs, for pre- and
post-judgment interest, for statutory penalties, including
attorneys' fees, and for any further just and proper
relief;” it is not apparent from the petition that the
total amount in controversy would exceed the jurisdictional
threshold. Id. at pg. 3-4.
I will give Chubb until October 15, 2019 to supplement its
Notice of Removal with sufficient evidence for me to find, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. Berent must file any motion
for remand no later than November 15, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Chubb
Insurance shall show cause in writing no later than
October 15, 2019, why this case should not
be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by
supplementing its Notice of Removal as set out above.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Roger Berent must
file any opposition to defendant's Notice of Removal no
later than November 15, 2019.
 Additionally, I note that ¶ 23 of
Berent's petition, cited to in Chubb's Notice of
Removal, seems to refer to a different plaintiff ...