Tripp v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Filing 35

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered. (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12588-GAO
BETHANY TRIPP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
September 21, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
A federal court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter
jurisdiction. See Denchfield v. Waller, 97 F.3d 1445, at *1 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing In Re Recticel
Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1998)) (unpublished table decision). The defendant
removed this putative class action from Suffolk County Superior Court, invoking the Court’s
diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although the Notice of Removal
sufficiently pleads diversity among the parties, the defendant relies entirely on the plaintiff’s claim
of $1,000,000 of damages in her state Civil Cover Sheet to demonstrate the minimum amount in
controversy of $75,000 has been met. However, as another judge in this district recently explained,
[C]ivil cover sheets are inherently imprecise, and the extent of a civil cover sheet’s
role in determining the amount in controversy is not settled in this Circuit. Courts
in this district and elsewhere have held that although a civil cover sheet may provide
evidence of the amount in controversy, it is “not in itself dispositive.” Other courts
have reasoned that a civil cover sheet “is simply too imprecise to make the requisite
demonstration of the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”
Williams v. Toys “R” Us – Del., Inc., C.A. No. 15-13943-MLW, 2016 WL 5723588, at *1 (D.
Mass. Sept. 28, 2016) (internal citations omitted).

The plaintiff’s complaint itself does not allege damages in any specific dollar amount and,
based on the allegations and requested relief, the figure included in the Civil Cover Sheet appears
to be entirely arbitrary. At the very least, no justification for that figure appears anywhere in the
record. In the circumstances, there is substantial reason to doubt that the amount in controversy
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Consequently, the defendant, who bears the burden of demonstrating that the amount in
controversy is satisfied, is hereby ordered to show cause within seven days of this Order why this
action should not be remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2