Dumbrell et al v. Powapos, Incorporated et al
ORDER of Dismissal. The case is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing in state court. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/30/2017. (lrf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEFF DUMBRELL and
CASE NO. 16cv2305-LAB (MDD)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
POWAPOS, INC. et al.,
Dumbrell and Rasori sued PowaPos for breach of contract. Plaintiffs admit that the
Court lacks jurisdiction unless it counts anticipated attorney’s fees towards the amount in
controversy. Our circuit hasn't decided whether “attorney’s fees that are anticipated but
unaccrued” at the time of filing “may be included in the amount-in-controversy.” Gonzales
v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Circ. 2016).
The Court adopts Judge Easterbrook’s position: “legal expenses that lie in the future
and can be avoided by the defendant's prompt satisfaction of the plaintiff's demand are not
an amount ‘in controversy’ when the suit is filed.” Gardynski-Leschuck v. Ford Motor Co.,
142 F.3d 955, 959 (7th Cir. 1998). Since Dumbrell and Rasori admit that, excluding future
fees, the amount at stake is below $75,000, the Court lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
The case is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2017
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?