Li v. Hayes

Filing 65

Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file with this court and serve on Defendant's counsel, on or before May 29, 2015, an affidavit, with any appropriate exhibits that Plaintiff seeks to include, which satisfies the standard of alleging facts with sufficient particularity that indicate that it is not a legal certainty that the Plaintiff's claim involves less than the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. (DHH, law2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SHAOGUANG LI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH HAYES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-40117-DHH

ORDER
May 14, 2015
Hennessy, M.J.
Before me are two motions.1 Defendant Elizabeth Hayes has moved to dismiss
the complaint (Docket #38), which pro se plaintiff, Shaoguang Li, opposes. Li has
moved for leave to amend the complaint (Docket #44),2 which Hayes opposes. On April
15, 2015, the parties appeared before me for a hearing on the two motions. (Docket #64).
The motion to dismiss the complaint REMAINS UNDER ADVISEMENT
pending a final decision on the motion to amend the complaint. For the reasons stated on
the record at the hearing, the motion to amend the complaint will be DENIED with
respect to the legal claims proposed at paragraph 5 of the amended complaint for: (a)
forgery, (b) fraud, and (c) conspiracy. (Docket #59-1, p.3). As explained, these proposed
claims are rife with pleading defects, and allowing leave to amend the complaint to

1

There are also other pending motions related to the parties’ efforts to engage in discovery. If
this case is not dismissed pursuant to either Rules 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the court will address
these motions in a future order, if necessary.
2

Li filed his motion without a supporting memorandum, or a proposed amended complaint. I
ordered Li to file the same (Docket #51). On April 8, 2015, Li filed a memorandum in support
of his motion, with the proposed amended complaint attached as an exhibit. (Docket #59).
1 

include these claims would be futile and simply generate unnecessary and expensive
motion practice, in violation of the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The motion to amend the complaint REMAINS UNDER ADVISEMENT
concerning Li’s request to amend his complaint to assert the legal claim proposed at
paragraph 5(d), for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.). Hayes has opposed
the amendment because, among other things, Hayes questions whether this claim
involves damages of at least $75,000 to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold set out at 28
U.S.C. § 1332.3 The court appreciates Hayes’ position. On the other hand, the standard
for assessing a damage allegation and determining whether it supports an exercise of
diversity jurisdiction is very stringent. It is as follows:
A plaintiff’s general allegation of damages that meet the amount requirement
suffices unless questioned by the opposing party or the court. However, once the
opposing party has questioned the amount, 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. This burden may be met by amending pleadings or
submitting affidavits.
Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted)
(emphasis added). This court recognizes that in assessing Li’s pleadings and affidavits, pro se
pleadings are construed generously. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Rodi v.
New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).

However, “pro se status does not

insulate a party from complying with procedural and substantive law.” Ahmed v. Rosenblatt,
118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).

3

If the court was to allow the amended complaint, it would only contain one count for
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2 

In this court’s view, Li’s submissions to date allege damages too generally and lack facts
alleged with sufficient particularity to meet this standard. Li is hereby ORDERED to file with
this court and serve on counsel, on or before May 29, 2015, an affidavit, with any appropriate
exhibits that Li seeks to include, which satisfies the standard of alleging facts with sufficient
particularity that indicate that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the
$75,000 jurisdictional threshold. His failure to do so may result in a complete denial of his
motion for leave to amend the complaint on the ground that allowing that motion would be an
exercise in futility. The court will take up the motion to dismiss the original complaint on Rule
12(b)(6) grounds, should it deny the motion to amend.4
It is so ordered.
/s/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

“When faced with motions to dismiss under both 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), a district court, absent
good reason to do otherwise, should ordinarily decide the 12(b)(1) motion first.” Ne. Erectors
Ass’n of the BTEA v. Sec’y of Labor, 62 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 1995).
3