Johnson et al v. Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 28

SUA SPONTE BRIEFING ORDER: Plaintiffs shall, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. These facts should be supported by summary judgment type evidence. The defendants will be allowed 14 days to respond to the plaintiffs submission. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 7/6/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLAUDETTE C. JOHNSON and
CLIFFORD JOHNSON
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 14-740-JWD-SCR
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A., INC. et al.

SUA SPONTE BRIEFING ORDER

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The burden of establishing jurisdiction in
this court lies with the party invoking the federal forum, in this case, the plaintiff who filed the
lawsuit in this court. (Doc. 1). Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
The plaintiff contends that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d). (Doc. 1, ¶ 5).
The MMWA supports jurisdiction in this court only if the amount in controversy exceeds
$50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B); Scarlott v. Nissan North
America, Inc., 771 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 2014). After reviewing the Complaint in this matter, it is
not facially apparent that the amount in controversy requirement is met in this case. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9).
The plaintiffs allege that “[t]he sales price of the AVALON was $40,168.54, excluding finance
charges. Plaintiffs made a down payment in the amount of $1,500.00. The total cost of the
vehicle to Plaintiffs including finance charge will be over $50,000.00.” (Id.) Plaintiffs further

1

allege under MMWA that “Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount in excess of $50.000.00
according to proof at trial.” (Id., ¶ 40).
Because the amount in controversy is jurisdictional, this Court must raise the issue sua
sponte if there is any doubt concerning subject matter jurisdiction. Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas,
145 F.3d 211, 217 (5th Cir. 1998). “[S]tatutes conferring jurisdiction are to be strictly construed,
and doubts resolved against federal jurisdiction.” Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 748 F.2d
1058, 1067 (5th Cir. 1984). The test to be applied is “whether it is more likely than not that the
amount of the claim will exceed [the jurisdictional threshold].” St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1263 and n.13 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Complaint does not explain how Plaintiffs reach the $50,000.00 figure. While, in
connection with Plaintiffs’ supplemental jurisdiction claim under Louisiana laws of redhibition,
Plaintiffs claim entitlement to a return of the purchase price plus “collateral costs of the sale,
finance charges, insurance premiums, [] out of pocket expenses ... [and] attorney fees” (Doc. 1,
¶¶ 29-30), it is clear that neither attorney fees nor damages for any pendent state law claims can
be used to satisfy the MMWA jurisdictional amount. Scarlott v. Nissan North America, Inc., 771
F.3d at 887-88. There is considerable doubt as to whether finance charges can be included in this
amount. Golden v. Gorno Bros., 410 F.3d 879, 884 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Voelker v. Porsche
Cars North America, Inc., 353 F.3d 516, 521 (7th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall, no later than 30 days from the date of this
order, file a memorandum setting forth specific facts that support a finding that the amount in
controversy exceeds $50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. These facts should be supported

2

by summary judgment type evidence. The defendants will be allowed 14 days to respond to the
plaintiffs’ submission.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 6, 2015.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3