FRANKLIN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF LAKISHA WILLIS v. BROAN-NUTONE, LLC et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Deft may refile its previously submitted summary judgment motion. Deft may do so by letter request & need not resubmit its prior briefing & exhibits. Deft shall refile an updated summary judgment motion that is in compliance w/ the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 & Local Civil Rule 56.1. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/23/2013. (drw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FRANKLIN MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF
LAKISHA WILLIS,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL NO. 10-04845(NLH)(JS)

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

BROAN-NUTONE, LLC, JOHN DOE
1- 5 AND ABC CORP. 1-5,
Defendants.
Appearances:
STEVEN A. KLUXEN, ESQ.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, PC
3 ETHEL ROAD
SUITE 300
PO BOX 3012
EDISON, NJ 08818-3012
Attorney for Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER R. CARTON, ESQ.
K&L GATES LLP
ONE NEWARK CENTER
10TH FLOOR
NEWARK, NJ 07102
Attorney for Defendant Broan-Nutone, LLC.
HILLMAN, District Judge:
IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that this
Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that it is a New
Jersey corporation with its principal place of business
in New Jersey and that Defendant Broan-Nutone, LLC is a
limited liability company whose members are Nortek,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
1

of business in Rhode Island, and Nutone, Inc. a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Ohio.

Plaintiff further alleged that the

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00, exclusive of
interests and costs;
2.

On August 1, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims;

3.

In its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiff argued that the Court presently
lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction was
not satisfied.

More specifically, in its opposition

memorandum, Plaintiff stated that, although it
initially believed at the time of filing that the
amount in controversy exceeded $80,000, it subsequently
determined through the discovery process that its
recoverable claim is only $71,913.16;
4.

On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause directing Plaintiff to file a detailed affidavit
attesting to its knowledge of the factual basis for its
initial claim for damages and how and on what basis it
came to later conclude that its claim is now limited to
$71,913.16.

The Court further ordered Defendant to

file a written response within ten days of the
affidavit;
5.

Plaintiff filed an affidavit from Joel Werbel, Esq.,
one of its retained attorneys, on April 24, 2012.

In

his affidavit, Mr. Werbel indicated that, at the time
2

that Plaintiff filed its complaint, Plaintiff had
reason to believe that the amount in controversy would
exceed $75,000, largely based on the $82,572.75 of
payments Plaintiffs had made prior to that point;
6.

Defendant filed a response on May 4, 2012, in which it
stated that it believed this Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction would be proper based on the initial
contents of the amended complaint and Mr. Werbel’s
subsequent affidavit.

Accordingly, Defendant asked

this Court to retain jurisdiction over this matter;
7.

Ordinarily, “if jurisdiction exists at the time the
action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be
divested by subsequent events.”

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc.

v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).

The

Third Circuit has made clear that: “a federal court’s
jurisdiction ordinarily depends upon the facts as they
exist when the complaint is filed, and thus subsequent
events that reduce the amount in controversy below the
statutory minimum do not require dismissal.

However, a

distinction must be made . . . between subsequent
events that change the amount in controversy and
subsequent revelations that, in fact, the required
amount was or was not in controversy at the
commencement of the action.”

State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co. v. Powell, 87 F.3d 93, 97 (3d Cir.
1996)(internal citations & quotation marks omitted);
8.

In his affidavit, Mr. Werbel affirmatively indicates
that Plaintiff believed the amount in controversy
exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold at the
time of the commencement of this action, and he points
3

to no subsequent revelations indicating that the
required amount was not in controversy at the time;

ACCORDINGLY, on this

23rd

day of

July

, 2013, the

Court hereby finds that, based on the representations of counsel
and the submissions of the parties, it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter based on diversity of citizenship
and an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional
threshold.

Furthermore, Defendant may refile its previously

submitted summary judgment motion.

If Defendant so chooses, it

may do so by letter request and need not resubmit its prior
briefing and attached exhibits.

Defendant likewise may, however,

refile an updated summary judgment motion that is in compliance
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and
Local Civil Rule 56.1.

/s/ Noel L. Hillman
_________________________
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

4