Abraham v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, Co.

Full title: GARY L. ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Jul 8, 2002

Case No. 8:01CV580 (D. Neb. Jul. 8, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 8:01CV580

July 8, 2002

ORDER

LAURIE SMITH CAMP, United States District Judge

This matter is before the court on Filing No. 30, the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. The parties have submitted briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the motion.

Pursuant to previous orders of the court and upon review of the Amended Complaint filed by the plaintiff, Gary L. Abraham, the court finds that the plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against the defendant: breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and bad faith refusal to settle insurance claims. The defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint and this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Question

In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction under the federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiff must assert a substantial federal claim. The court finds and concludes that the Amended Complaint does not state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff may have causes of action under state law, but the Amended Complaint does not state a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Diversity of Citizenship

The defendant does not contend that the parties are both citizens of the same state. However, the defendant alleges that the Amended Complaint fails to state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because it appears to a legal certainty that the value of the plaintiff's claims is less than the $75,000 jurisdictional amount.

An action founded on diversity jurisdiction will be dismissed if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount. Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 884 (8th Cir. 2002). Put another way, "[t]he district court has subject matter jurisdiction in a diversity case when a fact finder could legally conclude, from the pleadings and proof adduced to the court before trial, that the damages that the plaintiff suffered are greater than $75,000." Id. at 885.

The jurisdictional fact in this case is not whether the damages are greater than the requisite amount, but whether a fact finder might legally conclude that they are: In other words, an amount that a plaintiff claims is not "in controversy" if no fact finder could legally award it. In one of our more extensive discussions of this issue, we upheld jurisdiction, even though the jury ultimately awarded less than the statutory minimum, because jurisdiction "is measured by the amount properly pleaded or as of the time of the suit, not by the end result."

Id. (Emphasis added.) Although the plaintiff's claim to damages in excess of $3 million clearly appears unrealistic, the court cannot determine to a legal certainty that the plaintiff will be unable to recover at least $75,000 on his claims. In addition, the court does not agree with the defendant's alternate basis for dismissal, that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Therefore, Filing No. 30 the defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim for relief is denied.¹

1 The court notes that in his brief, the plaintiff has requested mediation. It is possible that the parties might benefit from exploration of that option.