Nalley v. McClements
| Decision Date | 11 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3327. |
| Citation | 295 F. Supp. 1357 |
| Parties | Donald F. NALLEY and John C. Cahill, Plaintiffs, v. James B. McCLEMENTS, M.D., Richardson B. Glidden, M.D., John A. J. Forest, Jr., M.D., William A. E. Leitzinger, Jr., M.D., Lawrence M. Baker, M.D., Arthur F. Zimmerman, M.D., Norman J. Jones, M.D., Charles Allen, M.D., Harold Remley, C.P.A., and Kenbrit Corporation, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
John E. Babiarz, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.
Harold Schmittinger, Dover, Del., for defendants.
Plaintiffs, residents of Maryland, instituted this action on March 15, 1967 for the recovery of architects' fees and expenses allegedly due them under a written contract with defendants, Delaware residents, for the preparation of plans and specifications for a medical office building to be constructed in the vicinity of Dover, Delaware. On March 30, 1967, defendants filed an answer which generally denied the essential allegations of the complaint and denied jurisdiction on the ground that the amount in controversy was less than $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Thereafter the parties proceeded with discovery and on November 4, 1968 plaintiffs moved for a trial date. At a pre-trial conference held on January 6, 1969, the Court pointed to the jurisdictional question which was unresolved and for the first time in the proposed pre-trial order defendants asked for leave to amend their answer, pursuant to Rule 13(f), F.R.Civ.P., in order to assert a counterclaim against plaintiffs to recover $3500 which represented a partial payment that had been made under the contract. Plaintiffs objected to the allowance of the counterclaim on the ground that it was untimely in that the request came too close to an imminent trial and if allowed would unduly prejudice the plaintiffs as additional discovery would have to be undertaken relating to issues raised by counterclaim. The case was tentatively set for trial with the understanding that the two issues would have to be resolved promptly. Subsequently, defendants formally moved for leave to amend the answer in order to assert the counterclaim and the plaintiffs by motion objected to the allowance of the amendment on the ground that the counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations.1 The parties filed briefs directed to these two points and this opinion deals with these two questions.
With respect to the jurisdictional matter, it appears that the defendants now concede that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Despite this concession, the Court is required to make an independent determination of this issue since the parties may not, by consent, confer diversity jurisdiction upon the Court. In the present case, the complaint demands a judgment for $11,992.40 against the defendants and appended to and made part of that document is an itemized statement which lists the components of the amounts demanded. The mathematical computation of the figures asserted in that statement appears to be accurate.
"Where a money judgment is sought, the amount in controversy is the sum claimed by the plaintiff `if the claim is apparently made in good faith' * * *" Hedberg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.2d 924, 928 (C.A. 8, 1965). This good-faith requirement is not satisfied and dismissal is justifiable only when it appears legally certain that the plaintiffs' claim is actually for less than the jurisdictional amount. The test is not what amount is claimed as damages but "whether it appears to a `legal certainty' that he plaintiff cannot recover an amount above the jurisdictional minimum." Jaconski v. Avisun Corp., 359 F.2d 931, 934-935 (C.A. 3, 1966). In the instant suit on the basis of the present record it cannot be said with legal certainty that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum and I therefore find no merit to defendants' attack upon the jurisdictional amount as alleged by the plaintiffs.
With respect to defendants' motion to amend the answer to assert the counterclaim, plaintiffs object on the ground that the counterclaim should not be allowed because it is barred by the Delaware 3-year statute of limitations. Defendants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ketherine G. ex rel. Cynthia G. v. Kentfield Cch.
...of the right of action provided in § 1415(i)(2). Katherine's citation to a case from the District of Delaware, Nalley v. McClements, 295 F.Supp. 1357 (D.Del.1969), does not advance her contention that the District's counterclaim seeks relief on an independent wrong. The claims in Nalley wer......
-
Bernstein v. Gramercy Mills, Inc.
...Co., 628 F.2d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1125, 101 S.Ct. 942, 67 L.Ed.2d 111 (1981). See also Nalley v. McClements, 295 F.Supp. 1357 (D.Del.1969). If § 36 could be otherwise interpreted, it would threaten a conflict with the uniform act, and since the former is a gene......
-
Nvf Co. v. New Castle County, Civ.A. No. 00-577-RRM.
...has stated "that as long as the main action is timely a recoupment will not be barred by a statute of limitations." Nalley v. McClements, 295 F.Supp. 1357, 1359 (D.Del.1969) (citing, inter alia, Bull, 295 U.S. at 262, 55 S.Ct. 695). "This rule is based on the theory that recoupment `is a de......
-
Hurst v. U.S. Dept. of Educ.
...Inc., 702 F.Supp. 1561, 1569 (N.D.Ga.1988); Vari-Build, Inc. v. City of Reno, 622 F.Supp. 97, 99 (D.Nev.1985); Nalley v. McClements, 295 F.Supp. 1357, 1360 (D.Del.1969). See generally, 6 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1419 at 151 (2d ed. 1990) ("Of cours......