Kosofsky et al v. Byler et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on June 10, 2013. (lw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
DAVID KOSOFSKY and
RUSALYN KOSOFSKY

PLAINTIFFS

vs.

CASE NO. 13-3020

MELVIN BYLER and
ANGELA BYLER

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Now on this 10th day of June, 2013, the above referenced matter
comes on for this Court’s consideration of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (document #11).
The Court, having reviewed the pleadings of the parties, and all
other

matters

of

relevance

before

it,

and

being

well

and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:
1.
2013.

The plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on January 30,
The

complaint

seeks

a

declaratory

judgment

that

the

plaintiffs are the rightful owners of two tracts of real property
located in Searcy County, Arkansas, and that the defendants have
not acquired ownership of that property by adverse possession. The
plaintiffs also asserts claims for trespass and ejectment.
2.

In the instant motion, the defendants seek to dismiss

this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The defendants

argue that the plaintiffs cannot meet the amount in controversy
requirement found in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), diversity jurisdiction is

conferred on the federal courts in civil actions between citizens

of different states, in which the jurisdictional amount of greater
than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, is met.
§ 1332(a)(1).

28 U.S.C.

According to caselaw, “a complaint that alleges the

jurisdictional

amount

in

good

faith

will

suffice

to

confer

jurisdiction, but the complaint will be dismissed if it ‘appear[s]
to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the
jurisdictional amount.’” Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 388 (8th Cir.
1994)(quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S.
283, 289 (1938)).
4.

The following facts appear to be undisputed for the

purposes of this motion:
* In April of 2006, the plaintiffs purchased approximately 70
acres of real property in Searcy County, Arkansas for $86,500.
This portion of the real property at issue is referred to as Tract
1.
*

In

2008,

the

plaintiffs

purchased

a

second

tract,

comprising of approximately 8 acres, adjacent to Tract 1 for
#13,000. This portion of the real property at issue is referred to
as Tract 2.
*

The defendants own real property adjacent to Tract 1 and

*

On

2.
January

19,

2013,

plaintiff

David

Kosofsky

and

defendant Melvin Byler met concerning a prior grant of written
permission allowing the Bylers’ cattle to enter Tract 1 and Tract
2 to drink from the creek on the property.

*

Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit on January 30, 2013.

*

The defendants state they wish to continue to use a

portion of the property – which they measure at approximately 15
acres.
*

The plaintiffs measure the portion of the property upon

which the Bylers’ cattle previously entered at approximately 26.6
acres.
5.
that

As stated above, in this motion, the defendants argue

the

plaintiffs

cannot

meet

the

requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

amount

in

controversy

Defendants argue that the

portion of the tracts of land upon which the cattle enter – whether
measured at 15 acres or 26.6 acres – is valued at well below
$75,000.
In their response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs argue
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because this action
seeks a declaration that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of
the entire two tracts of real property – totaling 78 acres – which
the

plaintiffs

purchased

for

$99,500.

In

support

of

their

argument:
*

Plaintiffs allege that during the January 19 meeting, the

defendant Melvin Byler indicated that he owned all of both tracts
of property by virtue of adverse possession.
*

Plaintiffs further allege that even if the defendants only

assert that they own, or are entitled to use, a portion of the
property, eliminating or encumbering that portion of the property,

an area which contains a creek, damages the whole.
* Finally, plaintiffs allege that the smaller portion of the
property which the defendants now assert is at issue is valued, by
itself, in excess of $75,000.
6.

Usery v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 606 F.3d 1017, 1018

(8th Cir. 2010) establishes that “in a suit for declaratory or
injunctive relief the amount in controversy is the value to the
plaintiff of the right that is in issue.”

However,

[t]he question is not how a plaintiff subjectively values
a right or even what his or her good-faith estimate of
its objective value is: The question is the actual value
of the object of the suit.

In a quiet title action . .

. a district court must determine what the property
interest at issue is worth in the marketplace, which is
a matter of objective fact.
Id. at 1019.
7.

Here, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that

they are the rightful owners to the entirety of two tracts of real
property

located

in

Searcy

County,

Arkansas,

and

that

the

defendants have not acquired ownership of those two tracts by
adverse possession.

The two tracts of property were purchased by

the plaintiffs in 2006 and 2008 for a total of $99,500.
Based on this evidence, the Court finds that plaintiffs have
met their burden to prove that the amount in controversy is
sufficient for diversity jurisdiction by a preponderance of the

evidence.

Although defendants claim that the actual property at

issue is less than the entire two tracts named in the complaint,
the defendants have not established to a legal certainty that the
claim is for less than the jurisdictional minimum.

See Bell v.

Hershey Co., 557 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2009).
The defendants’ motion, therefore, should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (document #11) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE