Nicolaidis v. BR-111 Exotic Hardwood Flooring et al

Filing 7

Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. re 4 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/4/2015. (S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Cheryl Nicolaidis,

Case No. 3:14 cv 2230
Plaintiff

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

BR-111 Exotic Hardwood Flooring et al.,
Defendants
This matter comes before me on Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity
between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
The determination of citizenship and the amount in controversy is made at the commencement of
the action. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991).
Once challenged, a plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction. RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1986).
A claim made in good faith is subject to dismissal unless it appears “to a legal certainty that the claim
is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” Jones v. Knox Exploration Corp., 2 F.3d 181, 182 (6th
Cir. 1993) citing St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). Stated
differently, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that it does not appear to a legal certainty that the
claim is below the jurisdictional amount.

DISCUSSION
In this instance, the Plaintiff alleges six causes of action regarding defective flooring
purchased from the Defendants. Her prayer for relief requests, “[a] judgment for an approximate
amount of $8,992.56.” The Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ motion for dismissal.
Having reviewed the complaint carefully, I find the Plaintiff has not met her burden of
establishing the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional amount under the legal certainty test.
As the amount pled is less than the jurisdictional amount necessary under § 1332, this Court is
without subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Having concluded there is no subject matter
jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to address the viability of the claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is granted.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge

2