Baez v. Direct Trucking Corp., 1:23-cv-16888

Pedro Baez worked as a delivery driver for Sparc Transport for about two years, alleging he and others were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees.
Baez claims unlawful wage deductions and out-of-pocket expenses were imposed, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).
In addition, Baez individually alleges unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement relating to an Installment Sales Contract for a delivery truck, for which he made payments believing he would ultimately receive ownership.
When Baez stopped working for Sparc, defendants retained both the truck and all payments made, refusing to acknowledge Baez's ownership interest.
Defendants moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction - amount in controversy) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim - Baez was not a party to the contract).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject Matter Jurisdiction	Alleged damages exceed $75,000 as required for diversity	Complaint lacks sufficient factual support for amount	Allegations sufficient; dismissal for lack denied
Standing to Bring Individual Claims	Baez made payments individually, directly harmed	Baez lacks interest; contract is with corporation	Baez alleged direct, personal injury; motion denied
Sufficiency of Common Law Claims	Alleges plausible individual claims, not corporate claims	Insufficient facts alleged for each claim’s elements	Claims plausible without all elements pleaded; denied

Sykes v. Cook Inc., 72 F.4th 195 (7th Cir. 2023) (clarifies standard for amount-in-controversy under § 1332)
Webb v. FINRA, 889 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2018) (amount in controversy; legal impossibility required for dismissal)
Frank v. Hadesman & Frank, Inc., 83 F.3d 158 (7th Cir. 1996) (direct personal injury vs. corporate injuries)
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (amount in controversy controls unless legally impossible)