George v. P.R. Wire Prods.
| Decision Date | 10 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2020-0074 |
| Parties | CYRILLE GEORGE, Plaintiff, v. PUERTO RICO WIRE PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Renee D. Dowling, Esq., For Plaintiff
Eugenio W.A. Geigel Simounet, Esq., For Defendant
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Motion for Remand” (Dkt. No. 4) filed by Plaintiff Cyrille George (“Plaintiff”) seeking to remand this case back to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands; Defendant Puerto Rico Wire Products, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) “Opposition to Plaintiff'[s] Motion to Remand” (Dkt. No. 5); and Plaintiff's Reply (Dkt No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands asserting that Defendant is liable for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. (Dkt. No. 1-1). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff contracted with a farmer for work that required a backhoe, and therefore entered into an agreement for the purchase of a backhoe with Defendant-a corporation organized under the laws of Puerto Rico. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff paid the purchase price of $41, 950 for the backhoe and it was shipped from Puerto Rico to St. Croix. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that after one day of using the backhoe, the machine stopped working and Defendant agreed to replace it. Id. After much delay, Defendant shipped a second backhoe. Id. However, by the time it arrived, Plaintiff had lost his contract with the farmer and additionally incurred freight charges twice and other transportation costs related to the defective backhoe. Id. at 2-3.
On September 2, 2020, Defendant removed the action to this Court based on alleged federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for Remand stating that Defendant has not established that diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter. (Dkt. No. 4 at 1). Plaintiff argues that although the parties are diverse, Defendant has failed to show that the amount in controversy meets the $75, 000 threshold. Id. Plaintiff maintains that he is seeking damages for the lost contract and the freight charges and transportation costs incurred, which total approximately $26, 200. (Dkt. Nos. 4 at 1-2; 4-1; 4-2; 4-3; 4-4). Plaintiff additionally argues that there is no federal question involved and that the dispute is governed entirely by local law. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2).
Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, arguing that the Complaint vaguely seeks damages “as much as is proven at trial” and therefore may be seeking damages in excess of the amount claimed in the Motion for Remand. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3). Additionally, Defendant argues that this matter involves a federal question because the controversy arose out of interstate commerce. Id. at 4-5.
It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts possess subject matter jurisdiction only over cases that present a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when diversity of citizenship exists and the value of the claim exceeds $75, 000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant “has the right to remove a civil action from state court if the case could have been brought originally in federal court.” In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 215 (3d Cir. 2006). For a removal predicated upon diversity of citizenship, a proper exercise of federal jurisdiction requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement as well as complete diversity between the parties-that is, every plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship from every defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also Grand Union Supermarkets of the Virgin Islands, Inc. v. H.E. Lockhart Mgmt., Inc., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003). For a removal predicated on federal question jurisdiction, courts must determine if “a claim aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (within the meaning of [28 U.S.C. § 1331]).” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
The burden of establishing a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction rests on the party invoking that jurisdiction. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388, 395 (3d Cir. 2016); The Fred, LLC v. Capstone Turbine Corp., Civil Action No. 2020-cv-0029, 2021 WL 1082513, at *1 (D.V.I. Mar. 17, 2021). “[I]n order to carry out the Congressional intent to limit jurisdiction in diversity cases, doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.” Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 403 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085 (1991)); see also Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985) (). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In order to establish diversity jurisdiction, Defendant must demonstrate that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The parties do not dispute that there is complete diversity of citizenship. (Dkt. Nos. 4 at 1; 5 at 1).[1] However, the parties dispute whether the amount in controversy has been met.
The general federal rule is that the amount in controversy is determined from the complaint itself. Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Horton v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961)). “If the plaintiff's complaint, filed in state court, demands monetary relief of a stated sum, that sum, if asserted in good faith, is ‘deemed to be the amount in controversy.'” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)). “When the plaintiff's complaint does not state the amount in controversy, the defendant's notice of removal may do so.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii) (). The amount in controversy asserted by defendant in the notice of removal “should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, 574 U.S. at 87. When a plaintiff contests a defendant's allegation, “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Id. at 88; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B) ().
In this matter, the Complaint is silent as to the amount of damages sought. As Plaintiff notes, Virgin Islands law prohibits making a specific plea for damages in a complaint filed in the Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 6 at 1 (citing V.I. Code Ann. tit. 5, § 5 and V.I. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3))). Defendant's Notice of Removal asserts that the $75, 000 amount in controversy has been met based on the price of the backhoe (approximately $42, 000) plus the loss of revenue, lost farming contract and costs arising from the shipment of the machinery which “undoubtedly” will make up the $33, 000 difference. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff contests Defendant's allegations regarding the amount in controversy. He argues that the Complaint does not seek damages for the approximately $42, 000 price of the backhoe:
[N]owhere in Plaintiff's prayer for relief in the Complaint does the Plaintiff ask for reimbursement of the price Plaintiff paid for the backhoe. As a matter of fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant supplied him with a second backhoe to replace the first one. That is accord and satisfaction. It stands to reason that there is no claim for the costs of the backhoe.
(Dkt. No. 4 at 1). Plaintiff maintains instead that the Complaint seeks damages for the freight charges, transportation costs, and the value of the lost contract. (Dkt. Nos. 4 at 2; 4-3; 4-4). In support thereof, Plaintiff has submitted two Bills of Lading, each reflecting freight charges of $1, 145.00. (Dkt. Nos. 4-1, 4-2). Additionally, Plaintiff has submitted invoices reflecting Plaintiff's previous demands to Defendant for the value of the lost contract, including reimbursement for lost wages, as well as transportation of the backhoe and the freight charges for each of the backhoe shipments, which total approximately $26, 200.[2]
Because the Complaint is silent as to the amount in controversy and Plaintiff has challenged the amount asserted in Defendant's Notice of Removal, the Court must determine whether Defendant has carried its burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co LLC, 574 U.S. at 88; 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial