Opinion
Civ. No. 07-244-AA.
November 19, 2007
ORDER
Defendants' move to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleging plaintiff failed to establish diversity between the parties; plaintiff failed to plead damages over the statutory minimum of $75,000; and finally, lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants. Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
DISCUSSION
First, plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to properly allege citizenship in the State of Oregon. There is no dispute that defendant Crosswhite is a citizen of the State of Utah and that defendants Biggs and Unique Settlements, LLC are citizens of the State of Arizona. Assuming plaintiff files a Third Amended complaint to reflect the fact that plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Oregon (as represented to this court in plaintiff's pleading), then pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity of citizenship exists and this court maintain jurisdiction over this matter. Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground is granted, however, plaintiff is allowed leave to file an amended complaint.
Next, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to allege the requisite amount in controversy. In addition to alleging diversity of citizenship, § 1332 requires that plaintiff must also allege that the amount in controversy as to each defendant meets or exceed the jurisdictional minimum, $75,000.
Plaintiff first alleges that for "purposes giving rise to liability," defendants Steven Biggs and his company, Unique Settlements, LLC, are the same entity. So that plaintiff need not plead that Biggs is liable for $75,000 and Unique is liable for a different $75,000. Further, plaintiff alleges that his claim against defendant Crosswhite is substantively different from the claims against Biggs and Unique. Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment against Crosswhite in the amount of $600,000, specifically alleging that Crosswhite received $600,000 of plaintiff's money from Biggs and Unique and Crosswhite's receipt and retention of that money is actionable.
Plaintiff argues that defendants do not dispute that the jurisdictional floor has been meet for three of the fourteen trusts of which he is Trustee. Plaintiff asserts that if this court properly has jurisdiction over three of the fourteen trusts then the court has discretion to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the other eleven trusts.
Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground is granted. Plaintiff, however, is again granted leave to amend his complaint to include a "short and plain" statement of his claims supporting defendant Biggs' liability on an alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theory. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Regarding plaintiff's allegation of "pendent or supplemental jurisdiction" over state claims, plaintiff is further allowed leave to amend to allege that the same operative facts are present for each trust and transaction. Id.
Finally, defendants assert that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants. I disagree and find plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts allowing for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Simply put, plaintiff as an Oregon citizen, on behalf of Oregon citizen trusts of which he is Trustee, made contracts in Oregon with defendants for the sale of life insurance policies in Oregon, and it was in Oregon that defendants allegedly defrauded plaintiff of profits. Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground is denied.
CONCLUSION
Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (doc. 15) is granted in part and denied in part. Further, defendants' request for telephone oral argument is denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be filed by December 7, 2007.
IT IS SO ORDERED.