Abdel-Aleem v. Opk Biotech LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 764
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Abdel-Aleem sued OPK Biotech LLC in district court alleging Massachusetts tort claims and diversity jurisdiction.
- OPK moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- Abdel-Aleem amended to claim at least $1,000,000 in controversy and added emotional distress claims.
- District court dismissed for lack of sufficient amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- Abdel-Aleem appeals, arguing the amount in controversy was met and jurisdiction exists.
- The First Circuit affirms, holding the record lacked sufficiently definite factual support of the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there diversity jurisdiction under §1332(a)? | Abdel-Aleem alleges more than $75,000 and complete diversity. | OPK challenges adequacy of the amount in controversy attachments. | No; insufficient facts show amount > $75,000. |
| Did Abdel-Aleem plead the amount in controversy with sufficient particularity? | Amended complaint asserts at least $1,000,000 in controversy. | General damages descriptions and vague figures do not meet the standard. | No; inadequate particularity to support >$75,000. |
| Do the claimed damages establish the required amount in controversy? | Damages include emotional distress, lost job, legal fees, and privacy loss. | No substantiation of specific amounts or links to damages. | No; no specific valuations or numbers supporting threshold. |
| Is attorney’s fees part of the amount in controversy here? | Legal fees from defending the underlying abuse of process suit should be counted. | Fees are not typically included unless statutory/contractual; here not clearly defined. | Part of the analysis, but still insufficient without specifics. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (legal certainty standard for amount in controversy)
- Coventry Sewage Assoc. v. Dworkin Realty Co., 71 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (objectively determine if claim exceeds threshold)
- Stewart v. Tupperware Corp., 356 F.3d 335 (1st Cir. 2004) (burden on plaintiff to show amount in controversy)
- Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (requires sufficient particularity when amount is challenged)
- Diefenthal v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982) (unsubstantiated damages fail to meet amount in controversy)
- Hardemon v. City of Boston, 144 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1998) (documentation can support amount in controversy)
- Dep't of Recreation & Sports of P.R. v. World Boxing Ass'n, 942 F.2d 84 (1st Cir. 1991) (attorney's fees as part of damages analysis when relevant)