Haney v. Ford Motor Credit Company
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Judge Roger W. Titus on 2/13/2012. (c/m Plaintiff 2/14/2012; bf2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL P. HANEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case No.: RWT 12cv344
******
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Michael P. Haney, proceeding pro se, alleges that his rights were violated when
his truck was repossessed in 1996 by Defendant. ECF No. 1. Because he appears indigent,
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) shall be granted. For the
reasons discussed below, the Complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff apparently seeks to invoke the federal question jurisdiction of this Court;
however, there is no federal question involved in the controversy he describes in his Complaint.
Resolution of his grievance involves application of Maryland State contract law and laws
governing the enforcement of judgments.
To the extent that a claim involving erroneous seizure of property could be reviewed by
this Court under diversity jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship does not appear to exist in this
case, nor has Plaintiff satisfied the amount in controversy requirement for this Court to exercise
its diversity jurisdiction.
Under 28 U.S.C. §1332, the district court shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
This Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It does not
appear to this Court within a legal certainty that the actual damages set out by the plaintiff meet
the jurisdictional amount under 28 U.S.C. §1332. It is an established general rule that Plaintiff’s
claim is the measure of the amount in controversy and determines the question of jurisdiction.
See McDonald v. Patton, 240 F.2d 424, 425-26 (4th Cir. 1957). The broad sweep of the rule is
subject to the qualification that the Plaintiff's claim must be made in good faith—there must be
no pretense to the amount in dispute. Id. In addition, while good faith is a salient factor, it alone
does not control; for if it appears to a legal certainty that Plaintiff cannot recover the
jurisdictional amount, the case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury
Indemnity Co. v. Red. Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).
In the instant case Plaintiff alleges that (1) judgment was erroneously entered against him
in the amount of $12,667.87, (2) he had the right to attorney fees in the amount of $1,856.60, and
(3) he had the “right” to an additional $3,000.00 (six months of $500.00 payments). ECF No. 1.
He states that he is suing in the amount of $7,771.27. Id. Plainly, the actual damages set out by
Plaintiff do not meet the amount in controversy. For this reason, Plaintiff's claim shall be
dismissed.1
A separate Order follows.
Date: February 13, 2012
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Additionally, the Complaint appears to be time barred. See Md. Cts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101 (providing
three year statute of limitations for civil actions at law).
2
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?