MBMB MANAGEMENT v. THE HARTFORD
Filing
12
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/27/14. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
MBMB MANAGEMENT, d/b/a Popeye’s
Chicken,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HARTFORD,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 14-3901 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion filed by Defendant Twin City Fire
Insurance Company (incorrectly named as “The Hartford”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) to dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To date, Plaintiff MBMB
Management d/b/a Popeye’s Chicken (“Plaintiff”) has not opposed the motion, despite the
Court’s extension of time from the original due date of September 22, 2014. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff initiated this action in federal court to recover defense and indemnity costs from
Defendant, its workers’ compensation insurance carrier, in connection with an underlying sexual
harassment suit brought by an employee. Plaintiff had submitted a claim and tendered its
defense to Defendant, but Defendant declined to cover the claim. According to the documents
submitted by Defendant in support of this motion, coverage had been provided, however, under
Plaintiff’s general liability policy issued by Sentinel Insurance Company. This coverage
included reimbursement for defense costs. Plaintiff exhausted the limits of its Sentinel policy in
July 2013. The sexual harassment suit settled in August 2013 for $20,000. In the Complaint,
1
Plaintiff seeks to recover “the sums of money that it has expended for the litigation of the
underlying matter and the amount tendered to settle said case.” (Compl. ¶ 7.)
Defendant moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argues that although the Complaint purports to
ground the Court’s authority over this matter in diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1), the action fails to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.
Section 1332(a)(1) indeed provides that a district court may have original jurisdiction over a civil
action between citizens of different States only if “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Defendant
acknowledges that Plaintiff seeks to recover $20,000, the amount it paid to settle the underlying
lawsuit, plus any unreimbursed costs of defending that suit. It points, however, to the fact that
the defense of the sexual harassment suit was covered until July 2013 by Plaintiff’s general
liability carrier and maintains that there is no indication from the Complaint that Plaintiff’s costs
from July 2013 to the resolution of the litigation in August 2013 would amount to an amount in
excess of $55,000, i.e., the amount needed to meet the jurisdictional threshold.
It is well established that “[t]he ‘party asserting a federal court’s jurisdiction bears the
burden of proving that jurisdiction exists,’ and federal courts ‘are presumed not to have
jurisdiction without affirmative evidence of this fact.’” M3 Midstream LLC v. South Jersey Port
Corp., 1 F. Supp. 3d 289, 294 (D.N.J. 2014) (quoting Nuveen Mun. Trust ex rel. Nuveen High
Yield Mun. Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C., 692 F.3d 283, 293 (3d Cir. 2012)). As the
proponent of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. McNutt v. Gen. Motors
Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994
2
F.2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993). The Complaint itself gives no indication that the amount
required to satisfy § 1332(a)(1) is at issue in the claim asserted by Plaintiff. And, having failed
to oppose this motion, Plaintiff has presented no evidence to support its jurisdictional allegations.
Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. It must, accordingly,
dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). An appropriate order will be filed.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: October 27, 2014
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?