Malhotra v. Hirsch and Ehlenberger PC
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 8 & 9 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 10/3/13. (apls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SANJEEV MALHOTRA,
*
Plaintiff,
*
V.
*
HIRSCH AND EHLENBERGER PC,
and/or its agents/assignees, to include
James P. Beglis,
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
Civil Action No.: RDB-13-0829
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above-captioned case was filed by the self-represented Plaintiff Sanjeev
Malhotra, a resident of Ijamsville, Maryland. On March 29, 2013, this Court entered an
Order (ECF No. 3) dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims, without prejudice, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Now pending before this Court are the Plaintiff’s “Request for
Reconsideration and Response to Memorandum Opinion,” “Reconsideration of Motion for
Leave to File the Accompanying Complaint In Forma Pauperis,” and “Supplemental Requests
and Exhibits” (ECF Nos. 7, 8 & 9) (“Motions”). No hearing is deemed necessary. Local
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011).
For the reasons stated below, the Plaintiff’s Motions are
DENIED.
The Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this District, asserting claims against Hirsch &
Ehlenberger PC, a Virginia law firm, and James P. Beglis, an associate of the firm. This
Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on March 29, 2013.
None of the Plaintiff’s claims could be read to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28
1
U.S.C. § 1331, and although there is complete diversity of citizenship, the Plaintiff’s claims
failed to meet the jurisdictional requirement that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed his Motions pursuant to
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1
To support a motion under Rule 60(b), the moving party must show “timeliness, a
meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional
circumstances.” Hale v. Belton Assocs., Inc., 305 F. App’x 987, 988 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993)). If these
threshold requirements are met, the moving party must then show: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud,
misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the
judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The moving party “must
clearly establish the grounds therefore to the satisfaction of the district court,” and those
grounds “must be clearly substantiated by adequate proof.” In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th
Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). “Rule 60(b) provides extraordinary relief and may only be
invoked under ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Mines v. United States, No. WMN-10-520, 2010
WL 1741375, at *2 (D. Md. April 28, 2010) (Nickerson, J.) (quoting Compton v. Alton
Steamship Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir. 1982)).
1
The “Supplemental Request and Exhibits” (ECF No. 9) was filed on July 1, 2013.
2
In his Motions, the Plaintiff merely rehashes the allegations raised in his Complaint.
The only new information that Plaintiff provides is that he now claims that he is entitled to
$75,400 in additional child support payments he has made over the past fifty months as a
result of the Defendants’ misrepresentations.
This, he argues, serves to meet the
jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement that this Court found lacking in dismissing
the Complaint. A plaintiff’s claim as to the amount in controversy must be made in good
faith. Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 112 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, if it appears to a legal
certainty that the Plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount, the case must be
dismissed. See Horlick v. Capital Women’s Care, LLC, 896 F. Supp. 2d 378, 397-98 (D. Md.
2011) (quoting St. Paul Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938) and Shanaghan,
58 F.3d at 112). Here, the Plaintiff has simply added frivolous claims for damages, not
supported by any proof, in a bald attempt to meet the amount in controversy requirement.
Indeed, it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff cannot recover fifty months of courtordered child support payments based on conclusory allegations of fraud by the Defendants.
Additionally, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of expenses, which are not included in the amount
in controversy for jurisdictional purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting the requirement
“exclusive of interests and costs.”) (emphasis added). Even according every benefit of liberal
construction to the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, no exceptional circumstances warrant
reconsideration of the determination that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
this case.2
2
Furthermore, even if this Court were to accept the Plaintiff’s specious allegations regarding the
amount in controversy, it appears that venue cannot lie in the District of Maryland. The allegations
3
As to the Plaintiff’s renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis, he merely reiterates
the statements made in his first motion (ECF No. 2), which was denied by this Court on
March 29, 2013 (ECF No. 3). The Plaintiff still has not provided specific information as to
income, credit, or expenses that could support granting the motion. In sum, even under the
most liberal reading of the pro se Plaintiff’s Motions, no grounds exists to warrant
reconsideration of this Court’s March 29, 2013 Order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion fails to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, it is this 3rd day of
October, 2013, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 7, 8 & 9) are DENIED;
2. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Memorandum Order to the Plaintiff
and counsel.
_____/s/_______________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
primarily concern events that occurred in Virginia and it appears that all Defendants are domiciled in
Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
4
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?