CONNORS v. HIXON
2:22-cv-07027-KM-JSA
D.N.J.Apr 27, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Alicia Connors filed a replevin/conversion action in New Jersey Superior Court seeking possession of a corgi puppy she alleges she owns. Defendant Matthew Hixon removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
- The parties are completely diverse; the only disputed jurisdictional question was whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- The parties agreed the dog’s purchase price is $1,400; Connors later clarified (by letter and amended state filing) that she was not pursuing compensatory or punitive damages.
- Magistrate Judge Allen issued an R&R recommending remand, treating the plaintiff’s post‑removal representations as clarifying and concluding to a legal certainty that Connors could not recover more than $75,000.
- Judge McNulty conducted a de novo review, agreed with Judge Allen, and held: (1) the value of the equitable relief and any duplicative compensatory damages is $1,400; (2) attorney’s fees are not recoverable under New Jersey law for these claims and thus do not count; and (3) punitive damages could not plausibly bridge the >$73,600 gap without violating due process.
- The district court overruled Hixon’s objections and remanded the case to New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County, for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction | Connors: dispute concerns ownership of the dog (value ~$1,400); she is not seeking compensatory or punitive damages | Hixon: original complaint sought compensatory, punitive damages, and fees; cannot say to legal certainty amount < $75,000 | Court: No. Value of equitable relief and duplicative compensatory damages is $1,400; jurisdictional threshold not met |
| Whether the court may consider plaintiff’s post‑removal stipulation/clarification | Connors: her post‑removal clarification describes relief sought and removes damages claims | Hixon: post‑removal representations should not be considered except in limited pretrial discovery contexts | Court: May consider such clarifications; even without them, to a legal certainty plaintiff cannot recover > $75,000 |
| Whether attorney’s fees count toward amount in controversy | Connors: requested fees in initial complaint | Hixon: fees should be considered in calculating amount in controversy | Court: Fees are not recoverable under New Jersey law for conversion/replevin absent statutory/contractual basis; fees do not count |
| Whether punitive damages could elevate amount in controversy above jurisdictional minimum | Connors: initially sought punitive damages in complaint (later disclaimed) | Hixon: punitive awards and other relief make it impossible to say amount < $75,000 | Court: Even if punitive damages were available, awarding >$73,600 on a $1,400 claim (ratio > 52:1) would be unreasonable and likely unconstitutional; punitive damages cannot supply jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuel‑Bassett v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2004) (removing party bears burden to show federal jurisdiction at all stages; removal construed narrowly)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (amount in controversy for equitable relief measured by value of object of litigation)
- In re CoreStates Trust Fee Litigation, 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1994) (value of the right sought governs amount in controversy for injunctions)
- Angus v. Shiley, 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993) (post‑complaint stipulations may be considered to clarify, not amend, ambiguous damage allegations)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (due process constrains excessive punitive/compensatory damage ratios)
- Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 (N.J. 2004) (New Jersey recognizes emotional‑distress damages as a component of certain intentional torts)