Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-884 (AK).
August 31, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case is before the Court pursuant to consent by the parties to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, filed on March 25, 2003. The Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [30] on July 14, 2004. The Plaintiff filed there Memorandum in Opposition [32] on August 6, 2004, and the Defense filed its Reply to the Opposition [33] on August 21, 2004.
The Court, sua sponte, questions the subject matter jurisdiction upon which this case is before this Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction in this case. This case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Federal Courts have limited jurisdiction and can entertain claims only when there is both constitutional and statutory authority to do so. See Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441 (1850).
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction only if the claim arises under the laws of the United States or where the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2). Although Plaintiff's case is predicated on diversity of citizenship, the complaint is defective in that it fails to state an amount in controversy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2).
II. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01, as amended. These claims do not suffice to invoke this Court's federal question jurisdiction. See Spivey v. Barry, 665 F.2d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding that federal question jurisdiction is not available for claims arising under the laws of the District of Columbia.) Thus, Plaintiff's claim of subject matter jurisdiction rests solely in diversity. The Plaintiff's complaint, however, is deficient on its face as it fails to state a proper basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Article III to the Constitution provides, in relevant part, that the judicial power shall extend to suits between citizens of different states. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. Thus, to establish a claim of diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states. In the instant case, diversity of citizenship exists. The Plaintiff, James Regan, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Defendant, Grill Concepts — D.C. Inc. is a corporation organized and incorporated in the District of Columbia. See Louisville, et al., v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497 (1844). Congress has legislated, however, that for the federal courts to have subject matter jurisdiction over a case in which the parties are diverse, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2).
It is the general rule that the amount in controversy claimed by the Plaintiff in their prayer for relief controls for purposes of determining the amount in controversy. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938). Additionally, however, there is a general presumption against jurisdiction and the party asserting jurisdiction carries the burden of proof in that regard. Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction, § 5.3 at 297; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322 (1888).
The Plaintiff's complaint states that the Court has jurisdiction because "the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars." (Complaint, ¶ 5.) The Plaintiff's prayer for relief does not include any numerical claims but merely seeks, inter alia, back wages, costs, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Id. These general assertions, without stated monetary values, are insufficient to satisfy this Court that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F. 3d 1179 (10th Cir., 2000) (holding that an "open-ended prayer for recovery" stating only that it exceeds the amount in controversy amount, is insufficient to assure the Court that the amount in controversy requirement had been met); Holtzman v. The World Book Company, 2001 WL 1450599 (E.D. Pa 2001) (holding that without specific allegations as to the amount in controversy, the pleadings are facially inadequate to invest the Court with jurisdiction). It is the responsibility of the party claiming jurisdiction and not the Court, to establish that the constitutional and statutory requirements of subject matter jurisdiction have been met. See McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936); SunCom Mobile Data, Inc. v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
The Supreme Court has held that a case dismissal is warranted only when it appears "to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount." Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 303 U.S. at 288; See also Rosenboro v. Kim, 994 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Those decisions control in situations in which the proffered amount in controversy is called into question. Here, the Plaintiff's proffered amounts are not being called into question, because the Plaintiff has given no dollar amounts whatsoever. Thus, the Court's decision to dismiss is not based on its belief that the Plaintiff's claims are "to a legal certainty" less than $75,000, but rather on this Court's inability to surmise for the Plaintiff the monetary amount it seeks and in recognition of the Plaintiff's burden of establishing the amount in controversy. Id.
The Plaintiff's complaint is facially defective for failing to set forth an amount in controversy. This Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in this case.
It is therefore, this ____ day of August 2004.
ORDERED that this case be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice.