Mankodi v. Trump Marina Assocs., LLC
| Decision Date | 06 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-3067,12-3067 |
| Parties | PREVIN MANKODI, Appellant v. TRUMP MARINA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a New Jersey LLC; SUSAN FLOORPERSON; J. DEALER, Trump Marina Associates employees whose real names are not known |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
Robert A. Nersesian [Argued]
Nersesian & Sankiewicz
Thomas B. Duffy
John M. Donnelly [Argued]
Mary Beth Clark
Brian J. Cullen
Levine, Staller, Sklar, Chan, Brodsky & Donnelly
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Previn Mankodi appeals the District Court's order dismissing his claims against Trump Marina Associates, LLC, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We will affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Because we write for the parties, who are well acquainted with the case, we recite only the facts and procedural history essential to our decision. Our review of the District Court's order granting a motion to dismiss requires us to recount the facts as pleaded in Mankodi's complaint. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002).
In the early morning of August 3, 2009, Mankodi placed a bet of $3,700 on a hand of blackjack in the Trump Marina Casino. The dealer dealt Mankodi an ace, giving him statistically expected winnings of $1,865 from that hand. A Casino floorperson instructed the dealer to rescind the hand, however. Mankodi protested to the floorperson,who called for security to escort Mankodi from the Casino. Security allowed Mankodi to protest to a state gaming official on-site, but then demanded that he leave the Casino. Significantly, however, the security officers never told Mankodi that he could not return to the Casino later. The gaming official told Mankodi that his complaint could not be resolved on the spot, and that Mankodi would have to make a complaint in writing to the Casino Control Commission (CCC). Mankodi then left the Casino.
That evening, Mankodi returned to the Casino and asked to speak to the manager then on duty. Casino security officers tackled Mankodi, placed him in handcuffs, and forced him into a private room, where they searched his person and property. Mankodi was held in the private room for over an hour before he was ejected from the Casino and told not to return. The CCC later confirmed that the Casino acted illegally when it withdrew Mankodi's blackjack hand.
Mankodi sued the Casino and its relevant employees, raising thirteen causes of action, and pleading damages —in excess of $75,000." App. 24. The Casino filed a motion to dismiss Mankodi's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 The District Court granted the motion, finding that Mankodi —could not possibly meet the jurisdictional threshold for federal court." Id. Mankodi appealed.
Mankodi invoked the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss. Grier v. Klem, 591 F.3d 672, 676 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000) (). —To survie a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although we must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, we are not bound to accept —legal conclusions" or —mere conclusory statements." Id. at 678.
We begin by determining whether the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mankodi's case, and then analyze each of his counts to determine whether they state a claim for relief. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the District Court had jurisdiction, and that Mankodi stated claims for battery, false imprisonment, and breach of the duty of public accommodation (Counts 1, 2, and 6 of his complaint).
Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction only —where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where, as here, the plaintiff has pleaded damages exceeding $75,000, federal jurisdiction is appropriate unless —it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover more than the jurisdictional amount of $75,000." Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 195 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation and emphasis omitted). In personal injury cases such as this one, —[t]he general federal rule has long been to decide what the amount in controversy is from the complaint itself, unless it appears or is in some way shown that the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith." Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961).
Here, Mankodi has pleaded damages in excess of $75,000 for battery and false imprisonment. As we shall explain, both of these causes of action were adequately pleaded. There is no indication that Mankodi asserted these claims in bad faith, and a review of jury verdicts in other battery and false imprisonment cases shows that Mankodi might recover more than $75,000, even though he has alleged only limited physical injury. See, e.g., Romanski v. Detroit Entm't, LLC, 428 F.3d 629, 631-33 (6th Cir. 2005) (); Simone v. Golden Nugget Hotel & Casino, 844 F.2d 1031, 1033 (3d Cir. 1988) (); Grosch v. Tunica Cnty., 2009 WL 161856, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2009) (); Mason v. Sportsman's Pub, 702 A.2d at 1311 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) ().
The Casino argues that jury verdicts may not be used as precedent and notes that most of the aforementioned cases were brought under § 1983, which allows for punitive damages. These arguments are unpersuasive. First, although it is true that jury verdicts do not provide controlling legal authority, they remain ample persuasive evidence that the District Court erred when it held to a legal certainty that Mankodi could not recover more than $75,000. See Frederico, 507 F.3d at 195. Indeed, courts have examined jury verdicts to determine whether cases meet the jurisdictional threshold. See, e.g., Burk v. Med. Sav. Ins. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d. 1063, 1069 (D. Ariz. 2004). They have even examined the damages pleaded by similar plaintiffs in resolving jurisdictional threshold disputes. See, e.g., De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 11 F.3d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1993).
As for the Casino's second argument, under New Jersey law, punitive damages are available for both battery, see Murphy v. Implicito, 920 A.2d 678, 688 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007), and false imprisonment, see Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc., 673 A.2d 309, 318 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996). Thus, even though Mankodi's physical injuries may beslight, depending on the proof at trial, a jury might award him punitive damages and we cannot say that such an award could, under no circumstances, exceed $75,000.2
Therefore, federal jurisdiction lies.
Having found that the District Court had jurisdiction, we now consider which of Mankodi's claims were adequately pleaded. A claim must —contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). For reasons we shall explain, we hold that Mankodi has adequately pleaded claims for battery, false imprisonment, and breach of the duty of public accommodation (Counts 1, 2, and 6 of his complaint). Because Mankodi's remaining claims have not been adequately pleaded, we will affirm their dismissal.
Mankodi's first two viable claims against the Casino are for battery and false imprisonment. Under New Jersey law, —[a]ny non-consensual touching is a battery." Perna v. Pirozzi, 457 A.2d 431, 439 (N.J. 1983). The complaint alleges that Casino employees placed hands upon Mankodi, and tackled and handcuffed him. That is clearly a —nonconsensual touching."
Similarly, —[f]alse imprisonment is the constraint of the person without legal justification." Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 969 A.2d 1097, 1117 (N.J. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Mankodi was constrained inside a private Casino room for over an hour after he asked to speak to a Casino manager.
The Casino argues that its actions do not constitute battery or false imprisonment because a New Jersey statute provides that:
Nothing in this section or in any other law of this State shall limit the right of a casino licensee to exercise its common law right to exclude or eject permanently from its casino hotel any person who disrupts the operations of its premises, threatens the security of its premises or its occupants, or is disorderly or intoxicated.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12-71.1. However, Mankodi's complaint does not indicate that he was disruptive, threatening to security, disorderly, or intoxicated. Therefore, his claims for battery and false imprisonment survive a motion to dismiss despite § 5:12-71.1.3
Mankodi has also pleaded a viable claim for breach of the duty of public accommodation. Under New Jersey law, —when property owners open their premises to the general public in...
To continue reading
Request your trial