On December 29, 2014, in Dudley v. Eli Lilly and Co., the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens (No. 13-719, (Dec. 15, 2014)), the presumption in favor of remand must be rejected in deciding CAFA jurisdictional questions (No. 14-13048, (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2014)).

Plaintiff Dudley filed a proposed class action in Florida state court alleging that Eli Lilly and Co. (Lilly) failed to make certain incentive payments to Dudley and other similarly situated individuals who had been employed by the company. Lilly removed the case to the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida under CAFA. Dudley moved to remand, arguing that Lilly had not established by a preponderance of the evidence the CAFA jurisdictional requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $5 million. The district court granted the motion, finding that Lilly's speculation about the amount in controversy was insufficient because it failed to specifically identify the number of class participants that were to be compensated or the amount each would receive as compensation. Lilly appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. During the pendency of the litigation, the Supreme Court held in Dart that CAFA's provisions should be read broadly with a preference that interstate class actions be heard in federal court. The Eleventh Circuit could therefore no longer rely on any presumption in favor of remand in deciding CAFA cases. In Dart, the Supreme Court also held that district courts must judge amount in controversy claims under a preponderance of the evidence standard when a notice of removal's allegations are disputed. Following these standards, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in granting the motion to remand given Lilly's failure to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold under CAFA.