The following excerpt is from Foltz v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-00907-KJM-MJS (E.D. Cal. 2014):
Alternatively, backing the future attorneys' fees out of the equation, and increasing the projected punitive damages in light of the case of Cadek v. Great Lakes Dragaway, Inc., 58 F.3d 1209 (7th Cir. 1995), discussed below:
Opp'n at 12.
When the complaint, as here, does not specify the amount of damages sought, the burden is on the removing defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). That is, the removing defendant must provide evidence establishing it is "more likely than not" the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.