CHARLES SIMPSON, District Judge
This matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiffs, Jean A. Brewer, et al., to remand this action to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court. This is a proposed class action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendant, Branch Banking Trust Corporation ("BBT"), breached its contractual obligation by failing to pay the plaintiffs for their accumulated personal or sick days.
In removing the action, BBT claimed that this court has original jurisdiction on diversity grounds. The named plaintiffs in this action are Kentucky residents and BBT is a corporation organized under North Carolina law, also having its principal place of business in North Carolina. It also claimed, that based on the plaintiffs all being long time employees of the bank and having alleged accruing a significant number of personal and sick days, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.
The plaintiffs have moved to remand the action on the ground that the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional requirement as to each and every class member.
For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that although BBT may be able to show that a few of the plaintiffs meet the jurisdictional amount, there is no diversity jurisdiction over the matter, and the action will therefore be remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court.
The burden rests with BBT to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332, See, Gafford v. General Electric Company, 997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993) (where the plaintiff seeks to recover some unspecified amount that is not self-evidently greater or lesser than the federal amount in controversy requirement, the removing party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the case meets the amount in controversy requirement). To meet this burden BBT provided an affidavit of BBT Vice-President, Carletha Ward, which included personnel data from the Bank's records regarding the number of accrued personal and sick days of Plaintiff Fletcher and members of the putative class plaintiffs. This affidavit, however, is silent with regard to Plaintiffs Brewer, White, or any other putative class member's claim.
To meet this burden, not only must BBT show that one or even some plaintiffs exceed the jurisdictional amount, but when plaintiffs who have separate and distinct claims, unite for convenience and economy it is necessary to show that the demand of all of the plaintiffs independently meet the jurisdictional amount. Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 294 (U.S., 1973). There is, however, a split of authority concerning whether the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 effectively overrules Zahn. Although the Sixth Circuit has not yet decided this issue, a majority of the district courts within the Sixth Circuit have agreed that Zahn remains good law. See, Durant v. Servicemaster Co., 147 F. Supp. 2d 744 (D. Mich., 2001); Krieger v. Gast, 197 F.R.D. 310 (D. Mich., 2000). We agree with the majority and conclude that Zahn survived the passage of § 1367.
Based on BBT's failure to provide evidence showing that each class member exceeded the jurisdictional amount in controversy, the court concludes that diversity jurisdiction is lacking in this case.
This action will be remanded to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, by separate order.