Miriam W. Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when a complaint does not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the “removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement”
• holding that jurisdictional minimum was not facially apparent from complaint demanding “general, special, and punitive damages for permanent physical and mental injuries, as well as substantial medical expenses, lost wages, and diminished earning capacity for an indefinite period of time”
• explaining that a “conclusory allegation” that the amount in controversy is satisfied, “without setting forth the underlying facts supporting such an assertion, is insufficient to meet defendant’s burden”
• holding it was “not facially apparent” from complaint seeking “general damages, special damages, and punitive damages in unspecified amounts” for injuries sustained in a trip-and-fall “that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”
• noting that the defendant bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction upon removal
• applying this approach where, as here, the defendant asserted the requisite amount in controversy in its notice of removal, and the plaintiff did not challenge the assertion in the district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).