Mostofi v. Network Capital Funding Corp.
798 F. Supp. 2d 52
D.D.C.2011Background
- Mostofi sued Network Capital Funding Corp. in DC Superior Court under the CPPA private attorney general provision.
- Network removed the case to this Court on April 12, 2011.
- Plaintiff alleges bait-and-switch mortgage practices and seeks damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief.
- Complaint states no single claim exceeds $74,000; Network asserts aggregable disgorgement could satisfy $75,000 threshold.
- Court must determine if amount in controversy meets federal diversity jurisdiction and whether disgorgement can aggregate with CPPA damages.
- Court remands the action to DC Superior Court and declines attorney-fees award under §1447(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the case meet the amount-in-controversy requirement? | Mostofi argues the CPPA disgorgement claim may be aggregable to exceed $75,000. | Network contends disgorgement can be aggregated to reach the threshold. | No; Network failed to prove the amount exceeds $75,000 as of removal. |
| Can CPPA disgorgement claims be aggregated with individual CPPA damages to satisfy removal thresholds? | Mostofi contends aggregation is not permitted for CPPA individual claims. | Network relies on district-law practice permitting aggregation of disgorgement. | Aggregation not established; cannot combine disgorgement with individual damages here. |
| Should the court award attorney fees for removal efforts under §1447(c)? | Mostofi seeks fees due to removal resistance. | Removal was reasonably based on district precedent; fees unlikely. | No attorney fees awarded; removal was reasonably grounded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969) (two or more plaintiffs may aggregate when united to enforce a single title or right)
- Reigner v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (CPPA damages are personal and not aggregated across plaintiffs)
- Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc. v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, 48 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 1999) (disgorgement could be aggregated to satisfy amount-in-controversy under DC Restraint of Trade Act)
- Freeland v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 632 F.3d 250 (6th Cir. 2011) (exactly $75,000 does not satisfy the jurisdictional amount; aggregation context matters)
- Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 460 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2006) (determine amount in controversy as of removal date; burden on removal showing)