Mendonsa v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Filing 6

PROCEDURAL ORDER re subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant to respond as outlined on or before April 5, 2013. Failure to comply with this order will result in remand to Rockingham County Superior Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jared Mendonsa
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-125-JL

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Plaintiff Jared Mendonsa filed this action in Rockingham
County Superior Court, asserting state-law claims for wrongful
termination, violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act,
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275-E:1 et seq., libel, and intentional
interference with contract.

Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch

Stores, Inc. (“A&F”), Mendonsa’s former employer, removed the
action to this court, invoking its diversity jurisdiction, see 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), because Mendonsa is a Massachusetts citizen
and A&F is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of
business in that state.
For this court to have jurisdiction under § 1332(a), though,
it is not enough that the case involves diverse parties; the
statute also requires that “the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000.”

A&F, as the proponent of federal

jurisdiction, bears the burden of demonstrating that this
requirement has been met.

Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins.

Co., 556 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2009).

To do so, it must

demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that more than $75,000 is

at stake.

Bassi v. Krochina, 2012 DNH 079, 9; see also Youtsey

v. Avibank Mfg., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Mass. 2010).
While this standard is not demanding, and “is for all practical
purposes identical to the preponderance standard,” Mut. Real
Estate Holdings, LLC v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 10-cv-236, 2010 WL
3608043, *3 (D.N.H. Sept. 13, 2010) (quoting Amoche, 556 F.3d at
50), A&F has not met it.
“A removal defendant can meet its burden by alleging
sufficient facts in its notice of removal, relying on the face of
the complaint in the underlying case, or, if the notice and
complaint are insufficient, the defendant may submit ‘summaryjudgment-type’ evidence.”

Id. at *4 (quoting Evans v. Yum

Brands, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 214, 220 (D.N.H. 2004)).

Here, A&F

has elected to rely solely on the complaint, pointing out in its
Notice of Removal that Mendonsa seeks compensatory damages in
excess of $25,000 related to his alleged wrongful termination, an
additional $25,000-plus in compensatory damages for the alleged
contractual interference, and attorney’s fees and costs.

These

requests for relief, however, at best create a reasonable
probability that Mendonsa will recover something more than
$50,000, not that he will recover more than $75,000.
A&F is therefore ordered to file a memorandum, not to exceed
seven (7) pages, on or before April 5, 2013, showing cause why

2

this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

That memorandum may be accompanied by supporting

evidentiary materials.

Mendonsa may (but need not) file a

response to A&F’s submission, also no longer than seven (7)
pages, within seven (7) days of A&F’s filing.

Failure to comply

with this order will result in remand to Rockingham County
Superior Court.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated:
cc:

March 26, 2013

John T. Pendleton, Esq.
Wilbur A. Glahn, III, Esq.
Steven J. Dutton, Esq.

3