Lowdermilk

FILED

Kleinfeld, J., dissenting MAR 02 2007

CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I respectfully dissent.

Our analysis must begin with the pleading. The pleading requires no new

law, just the well reasoned decisions in Abrego Abrego,1 Sanchez,2 and Singer.

The complaint did not plead a specific amount in controversy.

Plaintiff filed the case in state court. For the defendant to avoid remand

after removing the case to federal court, it had to show that the matter in

controversy “exceeds” $5 million.4 In the days when complaints stated specific ad

damnums, cases concerning amount in controversy requirements were simple to

resolve by following St Paul Mercury.5 Now that complaints often do not state

specific ad damnums, we (and our sister circuits) have developed an extensive

1 Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) 2 Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 Singer v. States Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). 5 St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Company, 303 U.S. 284, 288- 89 (1937)…