Johnson v. Kelly et al

Filing 24

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter a final order of dismissal.(PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PAULA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDMUND F. KELLY, et al.,
Defendants.

C.A. No. 10-11374-PBS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises out of a contract dispute between Plaintiff
Paula Johnson of East Saint Louis, Illinois, and Defendants
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and it’s chief executive in
Boston, Massachusetts.

The two defendants’ motions to dismiss

were allowed without opposition and plaintiff subsequently filed
a motion for relief judgment.

By Order dated August 19, 2011,

the Court granted plaintiff’s motion and allowed her to file an
opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The defendants were

granted fourteen days to reply.
Now before the Court are plaintiff’s opposition, see Docket
No. 21, as well as the reply of each defendant.
22, 23.

See Docket Nos.

After carefully reviewing the pleadings, the Court will

dismiss this action.
Federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction
over civil actions where the matter in controversy is greater
than $75,000 and the action is between parties of diverse
citizenship.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

“Once the damages allegation

is challenged . . . ‘the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has
the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts

indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim
involves less than the jurisdictional amount.’”

Spielman v.

Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001).
Applying this standard, it appears that plaintiff lacks a
reasonable, good faith basis to believe that her recovery could
exceed $75,000.

As noted by defendants, plaintiff alleges $1,653

in compensatory damages and requests $200,000 in punitive
damages.

While punitive damages may be considered in determining

the amount in controversy, the “District Court should scrutinize
the punitive damage claim to ensure that it has at least a
colorable basis in law and fact.”

D’Amato v. Rhode Island Hosp.

Trust Nat’l Bank, 958 F.2d 361, 1992 WL 55890 (1st Cir. Mar. 25,
1992) (not selected for publication) (quoting Kahal v. J.W.
Wilson & Assocs., Inc., 673 F.2d 547, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
Where plaintiff alleges less than $2,000 in actual damages,
punitive damages of $200,000 does not have a colorable basis in
law and fact.

Further, plaintiff’s opposition does not address

the jurisdictional issues and does not provide a basis for
permitting this action to proceed against the defendants.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, and for the reasons stated in
defendants’ motions to dismiss and replies to plaintiff’s
opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall enter a final order of dismissal.

2

SO ORDERED.
9/29/11
DATE

/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3