Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:00cv108-D-D
June 2, 2000
OPINION
Before the court is the motion of the Defendant, Jim Walter Homes, Inc., for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon due consideration, the court finds that the motion should be granted.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Jim Walter Homes, Inc. alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability, and negligent construction.
On June 27, 1995, Plaintiffs contracted with Jim Walter Homes, Inc. for construction of a home. In conjunction with the building contract, Plaintiffs executed a promissory note and deed of trust in favor of the Defendant. In February 1997, Plaintiffs paid the promissory note in full, an amount equal to $37,260.05, and the deed of trust was canceled. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Jim Walter failed to construct their home in a workmanlike manner and failed to properly construct the foundation of their home, thereby constituting a breach of the building contract, a breach of warranty of habitability and negligent construction.
In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs not only seek to have the contract revoked and decreed null and void, but also monetary relief reflecting the purchase price of the home, loss of use and enjoyment of the home, interest, incidental damages, consequential damages, attorney's fees, inconvenience, diminished value of the home, and costs. Each claim for relief in the Complaint contains an ad damnum clause stating that "Plaintiffs, individually, have been damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000."
Discussion
Invoking Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jim Walter argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present action. District courts have subject matter jurisdiction of civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As the party invoking jurisdiction, plaintiffs carry the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); Allen v. R H Oil Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).
Unlike a court's review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court may examine evidence outside of the pleadings when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Comprehensive Addiction Programs v. Mendoza, 50 F. Supp.2d 581, 582 (E.D.La. 1999).
It is axiomatic that the amount in controversy in a given action is determined from the complaint itself, unless it appears that the amount stated in the complaint is not claimed in good faith. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 1573, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938)). To justify dismissal, "it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount." St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289, 58 S.Ct. at 590. However, this "legal certainty" test, "has limited utility — in fact [it] is inapplicable — when the plaintiff has alleged an indeterminate amount of damages." De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, bare or conclusory allegations of jurisdictional facts are insufficient to invest a federal court with jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Associacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia S.A., 988 F.2d 559, 566 (5th Cir. 1993) (discussing removal petition which "merely states, without any elaboration, that `the matter in controversy exceeds $50,000. . . .'")).
In the instant motion, the Defendant moves for dismissal arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' failed to allege a specific amount of monetary relief sought, instead providing unsupported conclusory allegations that they were damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000. To the extent that Plaintiffs' simply claim they were damaged in an amount in excess of $75,000, a mere assertion that their claims exceed the jurisdictional threshold for a diversity case, the court finds this assertion insufficient to qualify as a specific amount of damages. See Myers v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 5 F. Supp.d 423, 428 (N.D.Miss. 1998); National Cable Television Coop, Inc. v. Viacom Int'l, Inc., 37 F. Supp.2d 1266, 1270 (D.Kan. 1998).
In suits involving multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff's claim must individually meet the jurisdictional requirement; the law does not generally permit aggregation of damages. Allen, 63 F.3d at 1330. Aggregation of damages is permissible, however, where "two or more plaintiffs unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest." Id. (quoting Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1056, 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969)). Such appears to be the case in the instant cause of action as both Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce their joint interest in the subject contract. Based on the pleadings before the court, it appears Plaintiffs' combined out of pocket expense is $37,260.05, the total purchase price paid for the home.
When a complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. "The district court must first examine the complaint to determine whether it is `facially apparent' that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. If it is not thus apparent, the court may rely on `summary judgment-type' evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy." St. Paul Reinsurance Co., 134 F.3d at 1253.
Applying this test to the facts pleaded by Plaintiffs, the court cannot conclude that the amount in controversy will likely exceed $75,000. In the present case, Plaintiffs' Complaint neither includes a prayer for punitive damages nor contains any allegation that Jim Walter acted in bad faith or intentionally. Plaintiffs do however, request that the contract between the parties be revoked and declared null and void and upon such revocation, have judgment entered against Defendant for a sum representing the purchase price paid by Plaintiffs. This amount, as conceded by Plaintiffs, is $37,260.05. After duly examining Plaintiffs' Complaint, the court finds nothing therein showing it to be "facially apparent" that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.
According to the ad damnum clauses in their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $75,000 for each claim, including interest, court costs and attorney's fees. However, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) specifically provides that the amount in controversy is to be determined exclusive of interest and costs. In addition, while attorney's fees may be included in determining the amount in controversy where such fees are permitted by contract or state law, Plaintiffs have not alleged any specific statute which would allow them to recover attorney's fees, nor have they alleged that they are contractually entitled to attorney's fees. See Graham v. Henegar, 640 F.2d 732, 736 (5th Cir. 1981).
This does end the court's inquiry, however. In addition to the Complaint, the court may look to "summary judgment-type" evidence in order to determine the amount in controversy. See id. Plaintiffs, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, have submitted no extraneous materials or documentation to carry their burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Indeed, Plaintiffs' sole substantive argument in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss is that their out of pocket damages, admittedly totaling $37,260.05, which encompasses their breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, should be aggregated with their damages under the negligence claim. Plaintiffs further contend that the negligence claim is worth $75,000 based upon the mental anguish damages awardable in Mississippi where the claim is based on failure to reasonably construct a home. Thus, when aggregated with the out of pocket damages, a jury would have to award approximately $40,000 in mental anguish damages to meet the jurisdictional requirement. This would be no small feat considering Plaintiffs have neither made an allegation of mental anguish in their Complaint, nor offered a shred of support for their assertion that they suffered mental anguish as a result of the alleged negligent construction of their home. In fact, Plaintiffs stop short of explicitly stating that they suffered mental anguish as a result of the Defendant's actions. Upon review of the record before it, the court finds no mention of emotional distress or anguish in any pleading.
Plaintiffs have made no effort to support their Complaint with affidavits, documentation, or even a concise allegation which might have revealed some factual basis for their claim of damages. The court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs have wholly failed to carry their burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Hypothetical claims and unsubstantiated supposition are insufficient to establish a jurisdictionally adequate claim for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
The court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the required jurisdictional amount is met in the present case, and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction over the cause of action. Thus, the Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs in this cause shall be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate order in accordance with this opinion shall issue this day.
ORDER
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Defendant Jim Walter Homes, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED;
Plaintiffs' claims against Jim Walter Homes, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;