Love Funding Corporation v. Jones

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by William E Jones, Jr. The Court hereby holds that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim and therefore grants defendant's motion. Because the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it does not reach the question of whether plaintiff's claim must be arbitrated. If the Court had jurisdiction, however, it likely would have converted defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion to compel arbitration and granted that motion. Finally, defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is a closer call. The Court deems it sufficient at this point to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction while reserving the right, should this case be reinstated for any reason, to revisit the appropriateness of sanctions. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 11/28/17) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------LOVE FUNDING CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

JSR)

-vWILLIAM E. JONES,

OPINION AND ORDER
JR.,

Defendant.
------------------------------------- x
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint alleging one count of defamation. Dkt. No. 11. The
Court hereby holds that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim
and therefore grants defendant's motion.
"In a diversity case, the party invoking the jurisdiction of
the federal court bears the burden of establishing a reasonable
probability that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)

is met." Burns v. King,

160 F. App'x 108, 111

(2d Cir. 2005)

In its amended complaint, Love Funding identifies a single instance
of defamation, alleging that defendant Jones, a former employee,
defamed it by telling a business developer with whom plaintiff had a
long-standing business relationship that plaintiff had been purchased
and was wholly owned by Jones' new employer
competitor). Dkt. No.

9

~~

(and plaintiff's

1, 12-13. This developer subsequently

informed Love Funding of Jones' statement.

Id.

this supposedly fraudulent statement could give

It is implausible that
r~se

to a claim for

damages meeting the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000 and the Court
accordingly lacks Jurisdiction over this action.
Because the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction,
it does not reach the question of whether plaintiff's claim must be
arbitrated.

If the Court had jurisdiction, however,

it likely would

have converted defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion to compel
arbitration and granted that motion.
Finally, defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is a closer
call. The Court deems it sufficient at this point to dismiss the
amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction while reserving the right,
should this case be reinstated for any reason, to revisit the
appropriateness of sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, NY

November~' 2017

2