Johnson v. Panetta
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100292
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Michael Johnson, a retired DoD civilian employee, sues Secretary Panetta seeking injunctive and declaratory relief over alleged DoD overpayments.
- Original complaint lacked a specific cause of action but requests declaratory relief, injunction, and attorney fees.
- Department allegedly overpaid Johnson for years, with notices citing debts up to $107,857.46 and deadlines to seek waivers.
- Defendant answered with defenses including lack of subject matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity, and moved to dismiss.
- Court reassigned the case to the current judge; four motions were filed: dismiss, leave to amend, enlargement of time, and a protective order.
- Court grants leave to amend, grants enlargement of time, and strikes the two moot motions; directs scheduling orders post-amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 after amendment | Johnson alleged diversity and amount in controversy. | Panetta challenged jurisdiction under § 1332. | Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332. |
| Sufficiency of the proposed amended complaint to state a claim | Plaintiff seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act; sovereign immunity not a bar. | Amendment would be futile and barred by sovereign immunity. | Amendment states a claim; not barred by sovereign immunity. |
| Timeliness of the motion to amend | Motion filed within court-ordered deadline. | Untimely. | Motion to amend timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (liberal amendment rule permits correcting defective jurisdictional allegations)
- Sun Printing and Publishing Ass’n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904) (court may examine whole record to cure defective jurisdictional averments)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (good-faith claim controls for jurisdiction; legal certainty required for exceedance of amount)
- Rosenboro v. Kim, 994 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (amount-in-controversy analyzed under good-faith test; court may consider all circumstances)
- Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631 (1st Cir. 1988) (party must spell out arguments; court need not research undeveloped theories)