in Kansas, the case was quickly removed to district court by defendant, under the defense tactical theory that no corporation wants to be stuck in the state court of the state where the deed took place. Defendant invoked CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) allowing removal, inter alia, where the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Plaintiff successfully remanded the case back to state court when the 10th Circuit denied appellate review of the district court's remand order. (While remand orders are usually not appealable, CAFA enables unsuccessful removers to seek appellate review by permission.) En banc review was also denied.
The substance of plaintiff's remand was that defendant had failed to offer any evidence of the $5 million "amount in controversy" requirement in its removal notice. Now, you'd think that in light of Iqbal/Twombly, mere notice pleading in the federal courts was dead, and plaintiff was right. However, that rule does not apply to a corporate defendant, apparently, for the Court today said that the mere allegation of the $5 million "amount in controversy" was enough. The authority? The mere notice pleading required by Rule 8(a). Oh, RBG, how could you? Scalia, our new best friend, leading a 5:4 dissent, would have found no jurisdiction to even review the 10th Circuit's denial of leave to appeal.