Ellis Jr. v. Life Rich Publishing

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 7/28/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 7/28/15-das)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOSEPH F. ELLIS JR.

v.

LIFERICH PUBLISHING

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. CCB-15-705

MEMORANDUM
Joseph F. Ellis Jr. sues Author Solutions LLC (“Author Solutions”),1 alleging breach of a
contract to issue a press release publicizing his book, In Defense of Jesus. (See Compl. 1, ECF
No. 1.) He seeks $10,740 in damages. (See id. at 2.) Ellis is not represented by counsel.
Author Solutions moves to dismiss this case for want of federal jurisdiction. (See Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 6.) Generally, this court’s jurisdiction extends to (1) “civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) disputes
between citizens of different states “where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). These two varieties of jurisdiction are known as federal
question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, respectively.
As to that first type of jurisdiction, Ellis does not allege any federal question; he asserts a
breach of contract, which sounds in state law. In his opposition, Ellis suggests that his complaint
also includes claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, deception, and theft. (See Opp. Mot. to
Dismiss 2, ECF No. 9.) Even if that were true, those claims also sound in state law, and none
supports this court’s federal question jurisdiction.
1

Ellis’ complaint names LifeRich Publishing, not Author Solutions. But LifeRich is not a legal entity. It is
the trade name under which Author Solutions publishes books. (See Corporate Disclosure Statement, ECF No. 7.)
Ellis served Author Solutions, which accepted service.

1

As to diversity jurisdiction, Ellis’ complaint requests only $10,740 in damages, far short
of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. “When a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the
plaintiff’s amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith.” Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 553 (2014). Ellis appears to have filed his
complaint in good faith, so the court will accept as accurate his request for damages. Further,
nothing in Ellis’ opposition supports a total claim of more than $75,000 in damages, even if he
had requested such a hefty award. Because Ellis’ complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional
requirement, his complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
A separate order follows.

July 28, 2015
Date

/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2