Celebrating Over 75 Years of Serving Nevada’s Legal, Business, Government, and Civic Communities
Federal Removal Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446
Thad Houston served, from August 2018 to June 2025, as the term, and then career, Law Clerk to the Honorable Miranda Du, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada. The most common mistakes he saw in notices of removal were failing to sufficiently describe the citizenship of the parties and failing to adequately show that the amount in controversy (“AIC”) requirement was satisfied in cases where it was not clearly alleged on the face of the complaint.
In the January 2026 issue of Communique’, Thad explains five things practitioners can do to avoid these two common mistakes. His article is provided below and available as a PDF here.
“Five Things to Help Secure Federal Removal Jurisdiction
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446,” Communique’, January 2026
Citizenship of Parties: Avoid Inadequate Descriptions
Most mistakes in describing the citizenship of the parties involved inadequate descriptions of the citizenship of corporations, LLCs, and partnerships. For a corporation, the state of incorporation and principal place of business must be stated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). “[W]ith respect to a limited liability company, the citizenship of all of the members must be pled.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016). The same applies to partnerships and other unincorporated associations. See Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990).
AIC: Understand the Burden of Proof
“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold” of $75,000. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). But if the AIC is not satisfied on the face of the complaint, the “preponderance of the evidence burden of proof [applies] to the removing defendant.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 2007).
AIC: Provide Evidence If AIC Not Clearly Satisfied
If the AIC is not clearly satisfied, courts “may consider allegations in the complaint and in the notice of removal, as well as summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 416 (9th Cir. 2018).
AIC: Sufficiently Address Punitive Damages If AIC Not Clearly Satisfied
The court may consider punitive damages when the AIC is not clearly satisfied, but the evidentiary standard described above applies to their inclusion. See id. The removing defendant must show punitive damages are available for the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action (supported by case law) and provide examples of punitive damage awards from similar cases involving the same claims. See, e.g., Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1200-01 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
AIC: Sufficiently Address Attorneys’ Fees If AIC Not Clearly Satisfied
“[A] district court may reject the defendant’s attempts to include future attorneys’ fees in the amount in controversy if the defendant fails” to carry its preponderance burden with summary-judgment-type evidence. Fritsch v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 795 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Johnson v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., No. 23-35222, 2024 WL 702332, at *1-*2 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2024). When seeking to include attorneys’ fees in the AIC, practitioners should show fees are available under an applicable statute or contract—and provide a reasonable estimate (supported by an attorney declaration) of what fees could be awarded using the lodestar method. See Fritsch, 899 F.3d at 795-96.
About McDonald Carano
In 2024, McDonald Carano celebrated its 75ᵗʰ Anniversary of serving Nevada’s legal, business, government, and civic communities. More than 60 lawyers and government affairs professionals serve Nevada, national, and international clients from our offices in Reno, Las Vegas, and Carson City. McDonald Carano provides transactional, litigation, regulatory, and government affairs services to startups, corporations, private companies, trade associations, nonprofits, public entities, high-net-worth individuals, and family offices throughout Nevada. We are deeply committed to supporting local communities by volunteering our time, resources, and services, including pro bono legal services, to nonprofit organizations, charitable foundations, and public service entities. We are proud to be your Nevada law firm since 1949.
Media Contact
Mark Buckovich
[email protected]
702.257.4559
You have chosen to send an email to McDonald Carano. The sending or receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you.
I have read this and want to send an email.