Vermande v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.

• Citation: 352 F.Supp.2d 195
• Decision Date: 28 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 3:04CV1154 (MRK).,3:04CV1154 (MRK).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Gertrude VERMANDE and Herman Vaneck, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.

352 F.Supp.2d 195

Gertrude VERMANDE and Herman Vaneck, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 3:04CV1154 (MRK).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

December 28, 2004.

Gertrude Vermande, East Haven, CT, pro se.

Herman Vaneck, Ivoryton, CT, pro se.

Adam J. Cohen, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

KRAVITZ, District Judge.

This case arises out of Defendants' repossession of Plaintiffs' Hyundai automobile, which (when new) was valued at approximately $23,289.00, according to Defendants, or at most $23,889.00, according to Plaintiffs. See Defs.' Reply to Pls.' Objections to Removal [doc. # 12] at 2; Pls.' Motion to Remand [doc. # 9] at 1. Plaintiffs, acting pro se, originally filed this lawsuit in state court on June 3, 2004, asserting two claims — "detrimental reliance" and "breach of contract." After approximately six weeks of proceedings in state court, Defendants removed this case to federal court on July 14, 2004, based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [doc. # 9] and Motion for Sanctions [doc. # 10]. This Court notes, and Plaintiffs do not dispute, that there is complete diversity because Plaintiffs are citizens of Connecticut and Defendants are citizens of California. However, Plaintiffs assert that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a remand of this action to state court. Plaintiffs further ask this Court to sanction Defendants for improvidently removing this action to federal court and for an improper certification. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [doc. # 9] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions [doc. # 10].

I.

Because Defendants removed this action from state court, they bear the burden of "`proving that it appears to a reasonable probability that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount.'" Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F.3d 291, 296 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir.1994)); see also California Public Employees' Retirement System v. WorldCom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir.2004); United Food, 30 F.3d at 301 (2d Cir.1994). If, as here, the jurisdictional facts are challenged, "the party asserting jurisdiction must support those facts with `competent proof' and `justify [its] allegations by a preponderance of evidence.'" United Food, 30 F.3d at 305 (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). Furthermore, the Second Circuit has repeatedly cautioned that "[i]n light of the congressional intent to restrict federal court jurisdiction, as well as the importance of preserving the independence of state governments, federal courts construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability." Lupo v. Human Affairs Intern., Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 274 (2d Cir.1994); see also Somlyo v. J. Lu-Rob Enterprises, Inc., 932 F.2d 1043, 1045-46 (2d Cir.1991) (same).

A.

In keeping with the established view that "plaintiff is the master of his or her claim," a district court will ordinarily respect a plaintiff's deliberate choices in drafting the complaint when determining the amount in controversy. Charles A. Wright et al., 14B Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3702, at 46 & n. 19 (citing cases); see also United Food, 30 F.3d at 305. Applying that principle in this case is complex for two reasons.

First, Connecticut does not require a plaintiff to state the precise amount sought in the litigation but only requires a plaintiff to allege whether more than $15,000 is in dispute. See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-91; Southington '84 Associates v. Silver Dollar Stores, Inc., 237 Conn. 758, 765, 678 A.2d 968 (1996) ("[T]he statement contemplated by the amended § 52-91 does not require the plaintiff to state the exact amount being sought."). Here, the Plaintiffs' prayer for relief (in addition to requesting a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendants from disposing of the Hyundai automobile) merely asks for "money damages ... costs ... [and] such other and further relief as in law or in equity may arise, in the circumstances that pertain." Complaint attached to Defs.' Notice of Removal [doc. # 1], at 13. And in accordance with Connecticut practice, Plaintiffs'"Statement of Amount in Demand" simply states: "Pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-91 ... the Plaintiffs state that the amount, legal interest, or property demand is fifteen thousand dollars or more, exclusive of interest and costs." See id. Therefore, on its face, Plaintiffs' Complaint does not indicate the amount in controversy.

Second, plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. As the Second Circuit has repeatedly cautioned, "[s]ince most pro se plaintiffs lack familiarity with the formalities of pleading requirements, [courts] must construe pro se complaints liberally, applying a more flexible standard to evaluate their sufficiency than we would when reviewing a complaint submitted by counsel." Taylor v. Vermont Dept. of Educ., 313 F.3d 768, 776 (2d Cir.2002). The Court, therefore, must "interpret [Plaintiffs' Complaint] to raise the strongest arguments [it] suggest[s]." Wright v. C.I.R., 381 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir.2004). At its core, it appears that this dispute concerns a financing contract for the purchase of an automobile, which all parties admit was worth no more than $24,000, far below the jurisdictional prerequisite of $75,000. Yet, because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and therefore lack familiarity with pleading requirements a closer inspection of the Plaintiffs' claims is warranted.

There is no reason to construe Plaintiffs' Count Two — labeled "breach of contract" — as anything other than as labeled. In Connecticut, "[t]he general rule of damages in a breach of contract action is that the award should place the injured party in the same position as he would have been in had the contract been performed." O'Hara v. State, 218 Conn. 628, 642, 590 A.2d 948 (1991). Non-economic damages for emotional distress, humiliation, shame, personal indignity, embarrassment, fear, anxiety and/or anguish, among other things, which a plaintiff has suffered or may with reasonable certainty be expected to suffer in the future, are not recoverable in contract. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) Contracts § 353, cmt. a ("Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily allowed. Even if they are foreseeable, they are often particularly difficult to establish and to measure."); Dan D. Dobbs, 3 Law of Remedies § 12.5(1) (2d ed.1993), at 107-08 ("The general rule is that no award may be made for emotional or mental distress resulting from contract breach alone."). Since the value of the Hyundai is no more than $24,000, there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiffs will recover more than the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000 on Count Two of their Complaint.

Count One — labeled "detrimental reliance" — is less clear, however. Count One can be read to assert at least two plausible legal theories. First, it may state a quasi-contract claim for promissory estoppel, alleging that Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on Defendants' promises that the Defendants should have reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance on the part of the Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Complaint attached to Defs.' Notice of Removal [doc. # 1], at ¶¶ 11, 15; see generally Stewart v. Cendant Mobility Services Corp., 267 Conn. 96, 104-05, 837 A.2d 736 (2003) ("`A fundamental element of promissory estoppel, therefore, is the existence of a clear and definite promise which a promisor could reasonably have expected to induce reliance.'") (quoting D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School, 202 Conn. 206, 213, 520 A.2d 217 (1987)). Alternatively, Count One can be read to assert a tort claim for, for example, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, alleging, as it does, that Defendants either knowingly or negligently supplied false information to Plaintiffs in the course of their business transactions, upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. See, e.g., Complaint attached to Defs.' Notice of Removal [doc. # 1], at ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 15; see generally Suffield Develop. Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766, 777-78, 802 A.2d 44 (2002) ("Under a fraud claim ..., the party to whom the false representation was made claims to have relied on that representation and to have suffered harm as a result of the reliance.") (internal quotation and citation omitted); Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co., 232 Conn. 559, 575, 657 A.2d 212 (1995) ("This court has long recognized liability for negligent misrepresentation. We have held that even an innocent misrepresentation of fact may be actionable if the declarant has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has the duty of knowing the truth.").

Moreover, if the requirement that a court must liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's complaint is to be taken seriously, the Court could conceive of other torts encompassed by Count One based on the factual description the Plaintiffs provide of their interactions with the Defendants. In fact, Count One explicitly raises issues of Defendants' breach of their duty of care — which implies a negligence claim. See Complaint attached to Defs.' Notice of Removal [doc. # 1], at ¶ 20 ("[D]efendants hired unknown ruffians to with and by strong hand seize the subject automobile and remove same surreptitiously from the possession of the plaintiffs. In so doing, defendants failed to exercise due care to protect the plaintiffs from harm and injury, failed and refused to respond at all to multiple inquiries made to resolve any matters in controversy,...