Opinion
LeRoy, Wells & Shaw, Elizabeth City, N.C., for plaintiffs.
Aydlett & White, Elizabeth City N.C., for defendant.
LARKINS, District Judge.
SUMMARY
This action is brought to recover damages in the amount of $25,000.00 based on an alleged breach of contract and damages done to forty (40) acres of land which the plaintiffs own. The parties appeared before the court for a pretrial conference on July 23, 1962, at which time the court entered an Order. Following an amendment to the complaint, the defendant renewed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That motion was denied on August 20, 1963.
The cause is now before the court on defendant's motion for judgment of dismissal on the ground that the alleged claim involves less than the requisite jurisdictional amount, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Both parties have submitted briefs and affidavits in support of their respective positions on the pending motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
For the purposes of such a motion as is before the court, the allegations of the complaint, as amended, are taken as true. Hlavaty v. Muffitt, 190 F.Supp. 541 (W.D.Va.1966); Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111, (1938). Thus, the facts as alleged by plaintiffs are as follows:
Pursuant to the notice of acceptance the defendant County took possession of plaintiffs' tract of land, evicted their tenant, dug holes in the ground, drove pilings and laid pipe and exercised dominion over the tract. Thereafter, plaintiffs tendered the deed to their forty-acre tract of land to the County through the county attorney, but the tender was refused. Afterwards, the defendant purchased another site for the hospital and informed the plaintiffs that it would not comply with its contract to buy the land.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In considering a motion to dismiss on the ground that the necessary jurisdictional amount is lacking, the court must adhere to certain guidelines as set out in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company v. Red Cab Company, 303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938). Speaking for the Court, Justice Roberts stated:
In this connection see also Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 367 U.S. 348, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961), and Richard Colgin Company v. Diamond Crystal Salt Company, 32 F.R.D. 44 (D.C.N.C.1963).
In this instant case the defendant contends that the plaintiffs' allegations of damages are not made in good faith, but are mere pretense. To counter this contention plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit attempting to show their good faith by setting forth the alleged damages which they claim they have sustained. The affidavit is sufficient to carry plaintiffs burden of proof in displaying their good faith and in showing that their cause possibly exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of ten thousand dollars in damages.
Following the doctrine laid down in the St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company case, supra, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has said this:
Here the court cannot find, as a legal certainty, that the plaintiffs cannot recover the jurisdictional amount which they have alleged. Giving them the benefit of the doubt then, their cause is properly within the jurisdiction of this court.
Therefore, it is ordered that the defendant's motion to dismiss for want of the necessary jurisdictional amount be, and the same is hereby denied.
The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon all counsel of record.