On December 31, 2015, in Robertson v. Exxon Mobil, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant may remove a case to federal court by showing that the amount in controversy is facially apparent from either the plaintiff's pleading or summary-judgment-type evidence ( (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2015)).

The plaintiffs, 189 persons who live in Harvey, Louisiana, brought suit against several oil companies, contractors for the oil companies, and certain landowners. The plaintiffs alleged that activities related to the cleaning of pipes used in the oil industry produced harmful radioactive material that injured their health and property.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Louisiana state court. The defendants removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)). The district court allowed jurisdictional discovery. It then remanded the case to state court on the grounds that the defendants had not met their burden of showing that at least one plaintiff satisfied the $75,000 individual amount-in-controversy for a CAFA mass action. The defendants appealed.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. It held that a defendant may remove a case to federal court by showing that the amount in controversy is facially apparent from either the plaintiff's pleading or summary-judgment-type evidence. In this instance, the defendants submitted evidence that satisfied their burden of showing that at least one plaintiff's claim exceeded $75,000. Specifically, in opposition to the motion to remand, the defendants filed the plaintiffs' interrogatory responses detailing medical expenses that were likely to exceed $75,000. The court held that these interrogatory responses, submitted in the same manner as evidence on a summary judgment motion, demonstrated a variety of specific harms that common sense dictates would place more than $75,000 at stake.