From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tripp v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Sep 29, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12588-GAO (D. Mass. Sep. 29, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12588-GAO

09-29-2017

BETHANY TRIPP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.


ORDER

On September 21, 2017, I ordered the defendant, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, to show cause why the case should not be remanded to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Denchfield v. Waller, 97 F.3d 1445, at *1 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing In Re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir. 1998)) (unpublished table decision). In that order, I explained that there was reason to doubt that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold for invoking diversity jurisdiction as the complaint neither claims a specific dollar amount in damages nor provides factual allegations which might permit an estimate of damages. I noted that the figure in the Civil Cover Sheet, apparently taken from the plaintiff's state court Civil Action Cover Sheet, appears entirely arbitrary based upon the allegations and requested relief. See id.; see also Williams v. Toys "R" Us - Del., Inc., C.A. No. 15-13943-MLW, 2016 WL 5723588, at *1 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2016) (citations omitted). The defendant has timely responded to the show cause order.

Upon a review of the defendant's submission, I conclude that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The defendant does not offer any additional information about the claims or conceivable damages, but instead continues to rely exclusively on the sum stated in the civil cover sheets. That simply begs the question. Even assuming the defendant need show only a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum, cf. Amoche v. Guarantee Tr. Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 43 (1st Cir. 2009), there is simply no basis in this record to conclude that the sum asserted is reasonably possible, much less probable. I conclude that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is lacking.

Consequently, the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Suffolk County Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

It is SO ORDERED.

/s/ George A. O'Toole, Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Tripp v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Sep 29, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12588-GAO (D. Mass. Sep. 29, 2017)
Case details for

Tripp v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BETHANY TRIPP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Date published: Sep 29, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-12588-GAO (D. Mass. Sep. 29, 2017)