EDREI et al v. FAIRBANKS et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 2/2/09. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

M I C H A E L EDREI and MARY EDREI, Plaintiffs, v. R IC H A R D D. FAIRBANKS, CAPITAL ONE F I N A N C IA L CORPORATION, CAPITAL O N E SERVICES, INC., CAPITAL ONE, F .S .B ., and CAPITAL ONE BANK, Defendants.

0 8 -c v-3 9 9 0 (WJM)

ORDER

T H I S MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss P la in tiffs ' complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for failure to satisfy the $75,000 a m o u n t in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Where a defendant c h a lle n ge s the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the burden falls to the plaintiff to show that the jurisdictional amount requirement is satisfied by his claim for relief. Columbia G a s Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion. While the damages claimed by a plaintiff control if his claims are made in good fa ith , dismissal is warranted in diversity actions where it is apparent to a legal certainty from the face of the pleadings that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed. St. Pa u l Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938). Even a s s u m in g arguendo that Plaintiffs could recover the maximum potential damages on all of

their claims, their recovery would fall far short of the $75,000 jurisdictional bar. Plaintiffs' potential recovery encompasses: (1) compensatory damages, which would be th e $1200 demanded by Plaintiffs in an exhibit to their complaint (Edrei Aff. Ex. A); (2) p u n itive damages, which would be capped at $6000 under New Jersey law, N.J. Stat. A n n . 2A:15-5.14(b); and (3) treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, a m o u n tin g to $3600, N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-19. While Plaintiffs claim an entitlement to c o n se q u e n tia l damages, they have pled no ascertainable damages flowing from the b re a ch , other than: (1) "Edrei's valuable time wasted," which the complaint estimates at $ 1 2 0 0 and (2) "damaged ... ability to borrow from financial institutions." The first a llega tio n is duplicative of the compensatory damages claim, while the latter allegation is p led with no specificity. Accordingly, this unsubstantiated consequential damages claim d o e s not push the alleged damages over the $75,000 threshold. As such, it is apparent to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied. For the fo re go in g reasons, and for good cause appearing; I T IS on this 2nd day of February 2009 hereby O R D E R E D that Defendants' motion is GRANTED; and it is F U R T H E R ORDERED that Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED.

/s/ William J. Martini WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

2