Notable Items:
Method of calculating amount in controversy.
Plaintiff: Avigail Frump
Defendant: Claire's Boutiques, Inc.
Venue: United States District Court, Missouri, Western Division
Material Facts:
- Plaintiff has filed suit and alleges: 1) false imprisonment; 2) negligent supervision; 3) malicious prosecution.
- Plaintiff seeks for each count: $25,000 and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
- On November 5, 2010, defendant removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a) due to diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
- Plaintiff requested that the case be remanded to state court as all known damages are less than $75,001.
- A full recounting of the facts is available below
Procedural History:
- Plaintiff alleges: 1) false imprisonment; 2) negligent supervision; 3) malicious prosecution.
Plaitiff's Claim(s):
Plaintiff requested that the case be remanded to state court as all known damages are less than $75,001.
Issues:
Does the amount in controversy satisfy the requirement of 28 USC 1332(a) so that the Court may assert jurisdiction?
Holding(s) and Disposition:
Held: Yes. Plaintiff's motion for remand to state court is denied.
Disposition: Case remains in Federal District Court.
Rationale
Majority Opinion
- Plaintiff has filed three claims, each for an amount in excess of $25,000 for actual damages, plus punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
- Single plaintiff v. single defendant, totality of the claims is the determining jurisdictional factor.
- False imprisonment and malicious prosecution can clearly be aggregated as each has an independent basis.
- Claim is in excess of $50,000 for actual damages.
- Single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process.
- Award of punitive damages for even on of these counts, ... would establish the requisite amount in controversy.
- Accordingly, the Court find ... the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction has been satisfied.
- A full description of the rationale is available below
Full Recounting of Facts
- Plaintiff filed on September 22nd, 2010, a three count petition in Circuit Court that: 1) plaintiff was accussed of theft while in Overland Park, Kansas; 2) defendant would not let plaintiff leave; 3) Overland Park Police issued a citation and directed her not to return for one year.
- Plaintiff later charged with a Class Misdemeanor. Charge later dismissed.
- Plaintiff has filed suit and alleges: 1) false imprisonment; 2) negligent supervision; 3) malicious prosecution.
- Plaintiff seeks for each count: $25,000 and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
- On November 5, 2010, defendant removed this case to federal court pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a) due to diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
- Plaintiff requested that the case be remanded to state court as all known damages are less than $75,001.
- Defendant argues that the damages could exceed $75,000.
- A list of the material facts is available above
Majority Full Argument
- Jurisdictional limit based upon St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938)
- Sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.
- If the plaitiff seeks remand to state court, the defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence...any doubt resolved in favor of remand to state court.
- Plaintiff has filed three claims, each for an amount in excess of $25,000 for actual damages, plus punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
- Single plaintiff v. single defendant, totality of the claims is the determining jurisdictional factor.
- Court may not aggregate claims that merely assert different theories of recovery for the same damages.
- False imprisonment and malicious prosecution can clearly be aggregated as each has an independent basis.
- Negligent supervision would provide an alternate theory on which to recover the same damages sought under false imprisionment, and possibly malicious prosecution.
- Claim is in excess of $50,000 for actual damages.
- False imprisonment and malicious prosecution are intentional torts supporting the submission of punitive damages.
- Single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages ... will satisfy due process.
- Award of punitive damages for even on of these counts, ... would establish the requisite amount in controversy.
- Accordingly, the Court find ... the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction has been satisfied.
- Plaintiff's motion for remand to state court is denied.
- The core of the rationale is available above