ABDEL-ALEEM v. OPK BIOTECH LLC.
Decision Date | 06 April 2011 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-10397-RGS |
Parties | SALAH ABDEL-ALEEM v. OPK BIOTECH LLC, ZAFIRIS ZAFIRELIS, ALEX PUGACHEV and DOES DEFENDANTS 1-10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND RELATED MOTION AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
STEARNS, D.J.
The motion to dismiss will be allowed. Plaintiff has invoked this court's diversity jurisdiction in what appears to be a tactical ploy to derail the litigation pending in Middlesex Superior Court, where plaintiff is being sued in a 2007 case revived by the successor-in-interest to the original plaintiff. The centerpiece of the complaint is a motion for an order from this court enjoining the state court proceeding.
The court agrees that the Complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold established by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).1 See Coventry Sewage Assocs., Inc. v. Dworkin Realty Co.,71 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995). Attorneys' fees, present and prospective, may not be included in determining whether a plaintiff has met the jurisdictional threshold unless they are contractual in nature (or mandated by statute). Id. at 3 n.2.2 Whether plaintiff has successfully pled an abuse of process claim (it would appear that he has not) is a matter for the state court to resolve, should plaintiff choose to raise the issue in that forum. See Ne. Erectors Ass'n of the BTEA v. Sec'y of Labor, 62 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 1995) () .3
OPK's unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice of Records in Related State-Court Proceeding (Dkt #7) is ALLOWED. OPK's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt #5) is ALLOWED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff's Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings (Dkt # 3) is MOOT. The Clerk will enter an order of dismissal and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Richard G. Stearns
1 The Amended Complaint states: "This Court has proper jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties on the grounds that all parties have diverse citizenship and because Plaintiff alleges that the amount of controversy is at least $1,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, which exceeds the minimum requirement of $75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332." Am. Compl. at ¶ 3. However, other than simply reciting what appears to be an imaginary number, Abdel-Aleem does not allege sufficient facts to address the jurisdictional challenge. See Rodriguez v. SK &F Co., 833 F.2d 8, 8 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam) ( ); cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) ) .
2 If faced with a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction; he "may meet this burden by amending the pleading or by submitting affidavits which sufficiently substantiate the alleged amount in controversy." Hardemon v. City of Boston, 144 F.3d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1998). Although Abdel-Aleem has amended his Complaint to state that "the amount in controversy is at least $1,000,000," he offers no further substantiation of this claim.
3 Because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial