Raybould v. Mancini-Fattore Company
| Decision Date | 06 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 18585. |
| Citation | 186 F. Supp. 235 |
| Parties | Joseph RAYBOULD, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Rose Raybould, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. MANCINI-FATTORE COMPANY, John S. Ventrelli, Donald Mancini, Albert Mancini, Lillian Loquer, Mathilda Ventrelli, Eugene J. Fattore, Stephen J. Fattore, Jr., and Catherine Fattore, d/b/a Mancini-Fattore Company, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
William P. Cooney of Ward, Plunkett & Cooney, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Lawrence A. Bohall of Cary, BeGole & Martin, Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
The issue presented is a narrow one. Defendants have moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment as to paragraph 2 of the complaint. The complaint sets forth two separate and distinct causes of action. One cause of action is by plaintiff individually against defendants for personal injuries sustained as a result of a gas explosion. The second cause of action is by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of his wife for recovery under the Wrongful Death Act of the State of Indiana, Burns' Ann. St. § 2-404, the death having occurred as a result of the same explosion which caused plaintiff's injuries.
There is no dispute here as to the existence of diversity of citizenship. There is no dispute as to the presence of the jurisdictional amount as to the first cause of action. The issue revolves around the amount involved in the second cause of action. Under the Indiana Wrongful Death Act, recovery is limited to $15,000. As recovery of $8,000 has been had previously, by virtue of the settlement of another lawsuit in Indiana, the maximum that is recoverable here under the second cause of action is $7,000. May this claim for $7,000 stand, or must it be dismissed for falling short of the $10,000 jurisdictional amount? May this claim be considered ancillary to the first and therefore supportable amount-wise, or is it necessary that it stand on its own feet amount-wise?
Our research has disclosed numerous cases which come close to this situation but none is factually either identical or analogous. The many opinions dealing with aggregation of separate amounts to meet the jurisdictional amount are, in our opinion, inapposite because we do not need to resort to aggregation to reach the jurisdictional amount. Plaintiff's individual claim here is for $210,000. His injuries as outlined in the complaint provide a believable basis for such a figure. We have been referred by counsel for both sides to cases where aggregation of demands to meet the jurisdictional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
...1964); Obney v. Schmalzreid, 273 F.Supp. 373 (W.D. Pa.1967); Newman v. Freeman, 262 F. Supp. 106 (E.D.Pa.1966); Raybould v. Mancini-Fattore Co., 186 F.Supp. 235 (E.D.Mich.1960); Wiggs v. City of Tullahoma, 261 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Tenn. 1966). See Jacobson v. Atlantic City Hospital, 392 F.2d 14......
-
DeLorenzo v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
...plaintiff may join claims held in different capacities to avoid a division of litigation between two courts.8 Raybould v. Mancini-Fattore Co., 186 F.Supp. 235, 236 (E.D.Mich.1960). But cf. Sobel v. National Fruit Prod. Co., 213 F.Supp. 564 (E.D.Pa.1962). Compare Borror v. Sharon Steel Co., ......
-
Dixon v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis
...246 F. Supp. 307 (D.Mont.1965); Orn v. Universal Automobile Ass'n of Indiana, 198 F.Supp. 377 (E.D.Wis.1961); Raybould v. Mancini-Fattore Co., 186 F.Supp. 235 (E.D.Mich.1960). These courts tend to ignore the traditional concept of "joint" or "common" claims in aggregation analysis, and have......
-
Lucas v. Seagrave Corporation
...to avoid such a multiplicity of actions: In Wiggs v. City of Tullahoma, 261 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Tenn.1966), and Raybould v. Mancini-Fattore Co., 186 F. Supp. 235 (D.C.Mich.1960) plaintiffs joined in their representative capacities did not claim the requisite jurisdictional amount. However, the......