Stephen Misel v. Mazda Motor of America, Incorp

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cv-00457-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998554049].. [10-2018]

Case: 10-2018

Document: 18

Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2018

STEPHEN MISEL; TIFFANY MISEL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MAZDA
MOTOR
corporation,

OF

AMERICA,

INCORPORATED,

a

California

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00457-F)

Submitted:

February 18, 2011

Decided:

March 28, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher W. Livingston, White Oak, North Carolina, for
Appellants. H. Toby Schisler, Amy L. Keegan, DINSMORE & SHOHL,
LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-2018

Document: 18

Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Stephen and Tiffany Misel appeal the district court’s
order

and

(“Mazda”)

judgment

12(b)(1)”)

Federal
motion

jurisdiction.

granting
Rule
to

of

Mazda

Motor

dismiss

America,

Inc.’s

Procedure

Civil

of

12(b)(1)

(“Rule

subject

matter

for

lack

of

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The Misels filed suit against Mazda, alleging that it
violated the North Carolina New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-15A (2010), and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (2006) (“MMWA”), when it failed to
repair or replace the new car that the Misels purchased.

The

Misels sought to recover the purchase price of the car less an
amount for reasonable use before the first attempted repair,
tripled pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-351.2, 20-351.3, for a
total

of

$66,405.15.

Mazda

moved

complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

to

dismiss

the

Misels

The district court granted

Mazda’s motion, holding that the Misels failed to satisfy the
MMWA’s $50,0000 amount in controversy requirement because the
aggregate of their MMWA claims was less than $50,000.
We review de novo a district court’s decision granting
a

motion

to

dismiss

under Rule 12(b)(1).
(4th Cir. 2007).

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction

See Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379, 382

The district court should grant such a motion

“only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute
2

Case: 10-2018

Document: 18

Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Page: 3

and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
proving

subject

12(b)(1)

matter

motion

to

jurisdiction

dismiss

is

on

in
the

The burden of

response

to

plaintiff,

a

the

Rule
party

Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299,

asserting jurisdiction.
304 (4th Cir. 1995).
A
certain

plaintiff

breach

of

federal court.
however,

is

not

may

file

warranty

a

MMWA

obligations

suit
in

for

either

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) (2006).
appropriately

brought

in

damages

a

state

for
or

Such a suit,
United

States

district court
(A)

if the amount in controversy of any individual
claim is less than the sum or value of $25;

(B)

if the amount in controversy is less than the sum
or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and
costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be
determined in this suit; or

(C)

if the action is brought as a class action, and
the number of named plaintiffs is less than one
hundred.

15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3).
The Misels concede that their claims do not meet the
$50,000 requirement unless they receive treble damages pursuant
to North Carolina law.
not

computed

The aggregate amount in controversy,

however,

is

on

the

claims.

See, e.g., Ansari v. Bella Auto. Group, Inc., 145 F.3d
3

basis

of

pendent

state

law

Case: 10-2018

Document: 18

1270, 1272 (11th Cir. 1998);
F.2d

1058,

1071

Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Page: 4

Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 748

(5th

Cir.

1984);

Collins

v.

Computertraining.com, Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 599, 602 (E.D. Va.
2005); Barnes v. West, Inc., 249 F. Supp. 2d 737, 739 n.4 (E.D.
Va. 2003); Critney v. Nat’l City Ford, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d
1146, 1147-49 (S.D. Cal. 2003); Rose v. A & L Motor Sales, 699
F. Supp. 75, 77 (W.D. Pa. 1988).

Therefore, the Misels do not

meet the MMWA’s aggregate amount in controversy requirement and
the district court could not exercise jurisdiction over their
suit.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4