Braden v. Murphy

6 Citing cases

  1. Kwolek v. NRT New Eng. LLC

    CIVIL 3:23-CV-01065(JCH) (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2023)

    Notwithstanding that the difficulty in approximating the possible recovery for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, so long as the plaintiff has articulated “the kind of injury that gives rise to emotional distress damages”, such damages may be properly considered in determining whether the amount in controversy requirement has been satisfied. See Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11cv884, 2012 WL 1069188, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2012). Although Connecticut Superior Courts have dismissed emotional distress claims based on property damage or economic loss alone as legally incognizable, they have recognized such claims if premised on “separate and independent bases”, such as, the presence of property contaminants.

  2. Howard v. Anthem, Inc.

    638 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D. Conn. 2022)   Cited 5 times

    Defendant also correctly notes that Plaintiff claims damages for emotional distress, which other courts have considered when calculating the amount in controversy. Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11CV884 SRU, 2012 WL 1069188, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2012); Dill v. Ron's Golf Car Rental, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00137 JBA, 2013 WL 3716382, at *4 (D. Conn. July 12, 2013). Given that a potential back pay award would already exceed the $75,000 amount in controversy, even a nominal emotional distress damages award would only serve to solidify that the federal jurisdictional threshold has been met.

  3. Allegrino v. Sachetti

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-cv-01865-VAB (D. Conn. Jun. 29, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    But Fedor was decided before the Second Circuit's decision in Scherer, which requires a defendant seeking to dismiss an action for failure to satisfy the amount in controversy to show "to a legal certainty" that the amount recoverable is not sufficient so as "virtually to negative the plaintiff's good faith in asserting the claim." Scherer, 347 F.3d at 397; see also Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11-CV-884 (SRU), 2012 WL 1069188, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2012) (noting that Fedor was decided before Scherer and holding that defendants "fail[ed] to meet the stringent test for showing that the amount in controversy is insufficient" where plaintiff alleged emotional distress damages). Relying only on his argument that Plaintiff simply cannot maintain an emotional distress claim under § 52-522, Defendant has not shown to a legal certainty that Plaintiff cannot recover more than $75,000 on that claim.

  4. Devone v. Finley

    3:13-CV-00377 (CSH) (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing defamation claim to the extent the defamatory statements were about plaintiff's son or the police department, not the plaintiff

    The legal impossibility of recovery must be so ceratin as virtually to negative the plaintiff's good faith in asserting the claim;" consequently even "where [a plaintiff's] allegations leave grave doubt about the likelihood of a recovery of the requisite amount, dismissal is not warranted," and in order "[t]o overcome the face-of-the-complaint presumption, the party opposing jurisdiction must show 'to a legal certainty' that the amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold." Id. (internal quotation and grammatical marks and citations omitted); see also, e.g., Gibson v. Scap, 2013 WL 1092905 at *4; Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11-CV-00884, 2012 WL 1069188 at *2 (D.Conn. March 29, 2012).

  5. A&R Body Specialty v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

    CIV. NO. 3:07CV929 (WWE) (D. Conn. Nov. 14, 2013)

    "An action for abuse of process lies against any person using a legal process against another in an improper manner or to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed." Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11cv884(SRU), 2012 WL 1069188, at *3 (D. Conn. March 29, 2012) (quoting Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394, 403, (2005)). Indeed, "[t]he gravamen of the action for abuse of process is the use of the legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed."

  6. Dill v. Ron's Golf Car Rental, Inc.

    Civil No. 3:12-cv-00137 (JBA) (D. Conn. Jul. 12, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Considering future loss of income in determining amount in controversy

    Informed by the prejudgment remedy that Plaintiff's full lost wage claim may not prevail, but coupled with a potential non-economic damage award, Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown the requisite amount in controversy. See Braden v. Murphy, No. 3:11 CV 884 (SRU), 2012 WL 1069188, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2012) (holding that in light of the Second Circuit's decision in Scherer, a mere assertion that plaintiff is entitled to emotional damages may be enough to establish the requisite amount in controversy). But see Fedor v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:01 CV 795 (GLG), 2003 WL 77002, at *2 (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2003) (plaintiff not permitted to "fill in the gap" between actual damages and requisite amount in controversy with "amorphous and difficult to quantify" emotional distress claim).