McDermed v. Aces High Management
2:10-cv-01087
D. Nev.Jun 10, 2011Background
- McDermed, a California resident, sues Saddle West for negligence after a July 6, 2008 slip-and-fall on Saddle West premises in Nevada diverse jurisdiction asserted.
- Plaintiff alleges unsafe conditions caused injuries to her knee, back, and other parts, with medical expenses exceeding $38,205.54 to date and potential future procedures pushing near $100,000.
- Saddle West moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for a settlement conference.
- McDermed opposed, arguing damages exceed $75,000 in light of current and anticipated medical expenses.
- Court analyzes jurisdiction sua sponte, denies dismissal, and refers settlement conference request to Magistrate Judge Leavitt.
- Order issued June 10, 2011 denying dismissal and forwarding settlement conference request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does diversity jurisdiction exist here? | McDermed claims damages exceed $75,000 and parties are diverse. | McDermed's expenses do not reach $75,000, destroying diversity. | No; court finds amount in controversy appears to exceed $75,000 based on pleadings. |
| Is the amount in controversy sufficient to support jurisdiction? | Current damages plus probable future medical expenses exceed $75,000. | Only $38,205.54 specified; uncertain future costs. | Damages exceed $75,000 on face of pleadings; jurisdiction remains. |
| Should the case be dismissed or a settlement conference ordered? | N/A (not asserted as a separate issue in the motion). | N/A (motion sought dismissal or settlement conference). | Court denies dismissal and refers settlement conference to Magistrate Judge Leavitt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional predicate required for court to hear a case)
- In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust, 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for evaluating subject matter jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss)
- McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden on plaintiff to prove federal jurisdiction)
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (jurisdictional amount assessed by facial pleadings; legal certainty test)
- St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (establishing amount in controversy standard for jurisdiction)
- Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996) (legal certainty test for keeping or dismissing a case for damages amount)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; need jurisdictional predicate)
- Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989) (presumption of lack of jurisdiction absent affirmative showing)