LITHIA RAMSEY-T, LLC v. CITY LINE AUTO SALES, LLC
2:22-cv-03592
D.N.J.Feb 9, 2023Background
- Prestige Toyota (New Jersey LLC) alleges Reginald Boyd used false identifying information to obtain a 2018 Mercedes from its Ramsey, NJ dealership; Driveway Finance declined financing after learning the information was false.
- A duplicate title was issued and the car was sold; CarFax showed a duplicate title and sale to Phillipsburg Easton Honda (P.E. Honda); P.E. Honda traced its acquisition to City Line Auto Sales (Pennsylvania) and returned the vehicle to City Line after learning of fraud.
- City Line (owned by Steven Safi) purchased the vehicle from Rene Vazquez Turpeau in Pennsylvania for $33,000; City Line refused to return the car to Prestige absent $34,000 payment.
- Prestige sued Boyd, City Line, Safi, and Turpeau asserting identity theft (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:21-17.4), fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment; defaults were entered against Boyd and Turpeau; City Line and Safi moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and (6).
- The Court held Prestige’s amended complaint failed to plead diversity properly (LLC citizenship) in the pleading (Lincoln standard) but that treble damages under the identity-theft statute could satisfy amount-in-controversy; the Court dismissed without prejudice for jurisdictional defects, granted leave to amend, and permitted targeted jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction — diversity pleading | Prestige can allege in good faith that it is diverse from defendants (Lincoln) and will amend to show parent corporation citizenship | Amended complaint fails to allege all LLC members, so diversity not established | Plaintiff may amend to plead LLC members; facial diversity challenge not established on briefing alone |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction — amount in controversy | Treble damages and attorneys’ fees under NJ identity-theft statute push claim over $75,000 | The car’s used value is under $75,000 so amount-in-controversy not met | Treble of agreed sale price ($40,595) suffices to meet $75,000 threshold for jurisdictional purposes |
| Personal jurisdiction — specific (Calder effects; conspiracy) | City Line’s purchase/resale of the fraudulently titled car caused effects in NJ and targeted Prestige; alternatively, City Line conspired to defraud Prestige | City Line merely bought the car in PA from Turpeau and did not aim tortious conduct at NJ; no conspiracy properly pled | Specific jurisdiction not established: complaint lacks plausible facts showing City Line expressly aimed tort at NJ or agreed in a conspiracy |
| Personal jurisdiction — general (at-home contacts) | City Line regularly does business across state lines; selling the car to a NJ dealer suggests contacts | City Line is a Pennsylvania LLC with PA offices; single resale is insufficient for general jurisdiction | General jurisdiction not shown; plaintiff may pursue limited jurisdictional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff need not allege every LLC member’s citizenship at pleading stage if in good faith after reasonable inquiry)
- Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (natural persons’ citizenship is domicile for diversity purposes)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (plaintiff’s good-faith claim controls amount-in-controversy)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2016) (amount-in-controversy burden not onerous; plaintiff’s claimed sum controls if in good faith)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for specific jurisdiction over intentional torts)
- IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) (Calder-based specific jurisdiction framework)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant be essentially at home in forum)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (standards for plaintiff’s burden and jurisdictional discovery)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Twombly/Iqbal)