Lapaglia v. Transamerica Casualty Insurance, 155 F. Supp. 3d 153

Plaintiff (Connecticut citizen, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis) sued Transamerica Casualty Insurance Company (Pennsylvania) for breach of a travel insurance policy, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Original damages alleged were in excess of $10,000; court ordered plaintiff to show the $75,000 amount-in-controversy required for diversity jurisdiction; plaintiff amended to allege $110,000.
Facts: plaintiff purchased travel insurance and traveled to London in May 2013, was refused entry, detained for five days, claims interrogation/torture, and alleges damage to laptop and suits; returned to U.S., was allegedly interrogated in New York, then stayed nine days in a motel.
Plaintiff submitted documentation supporting roughly $3,800 in actual travel, lodging, and laptop-replacement expenses; he alleged (without documentation) a lost employment opportunity in North Korea worth $100,000.
Court found plaintiff failed to plausibly allege or adduce evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged $75,000+ amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction	Alleged $110,000 total, largely based on a $100,000 lost employment opportunity in North Korea	Plaintiff's documentary damages are far below $75,000 and the $100,000 lost-opportunity claim is speculative and undocumented	Dismissed: amount-in-controversy not plausibly shown or supported by competent evidence
Whether plausibility standard applies to jurisdictional facts	Plaintiff asserted amount on face of complaint	Implicit: jurisdictional facts must be established, here by evidence when challenged	Court: plausibility standard applies to jurisdictional allegations; plaintiff must plead and, when challenged, prove jurisdictional facts
Whether court must permit jurisdictional discovery before dismissal	Plaintiff sought to proceed in federal court based on asserted amount	Defendant argued lack of jurisdiction obviates discovery	Court: discovery remains available but court need not postpone dismissal where plaintiff fails to make facially plausible or evidentiary showing of jurisdictional facts
Whether state-court filing remains available	Plaintiff sought federal forum	Defendant relied on federal jurisdictional requirement	Court: dismissal without prejudice; plaintiff free to file in state court

Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005) (amount-in-controversy ordinarily measured at time complaint filed)
Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961) (amount claimed on complaint establishes jurisdictional amount)
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 347 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2003) (complaint’s dollar demand informs amount-in-controversy inquiry)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead factual allegations that plausibly support relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2015) (pro se complaints must still meet plausibility threshold)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (removal notice must plausibly allege amount in controversy)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (court has independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (suits may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction when federal claim is insubstantial or made solely to obtain jurisdiction)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1994) (when jurisdictional facts are challenged, plaintiff must support them with competent proof)
Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781 (2d Cir. 1994) (complaint may be dismissed where it is legally certain plaintiff cannot recover requisite jurisdictional amount)