Ochman v. Wyoming Seminary
3:12-cv-00088
M.D. Penn.May 18, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs Danielle and Joseph Ochman sue Wyoming Seminary for breach of contract related to Daniel Ochman's post-graduate program promises.
- Daniel enrolled in Wyoming Seminary’s PG program in Aug. 2010 and alleges lack of promised academic environment, guidance, and programming.
- Plaintiffs assert the contract was formed with an adhesion-like agreement containing a arbitration clause, but focus on a written contract with specific promises.
- Daniel left Wyoming Seminary in Nov. 2010; plaintiffs paid $29,212.89 for the promised educational services.
- Amended complaint purports a state-law breach of contract claim and invokes diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332; defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Court’s dispositive issue is whether plaintiffs have alleged an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 to sustain diversity jurisdiction; damages claimed beyond the paid amount are not adequately pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Amended Complaint plead an amount in controversy over $75,000? | Ochmans claim potential greater damages beyond tuition. | Damages beyond tuition are not pled with adequate specificity. | No; damages are limited to $29,212.89 at present, insufficient for jurisdiction. |
| Are purported consequential damages supported by contract terms? | There are promised educational benefits that would yield lost future earnings. | No contract terms identified supporting consequential damages. | Consequence damages not pled with identifiable contractual terms; limited to paid amount. |
| Can the court accept or require amendment to cure jurisdictional defects under Rule 1653? | Jurisdictional allegations could be cured with a proper amendment. | Imperfect allegations show lack of jurisdiction, unresolved at present. | Court grants leave to file a second amended complaint within 21 days to cure jurisdictional allegations. |
| Is there standing to plead on behalf of the son or proper diversity citizenship meeting threshold? | Plaintiffs reside in New Jersey, seeking to rely on diversity. | Domicile and citizenship not properly pleaded; threshold jurisdictional facts are open. | Threshold citizenship/amounts inadequately pled; allowed amendment under 1653 to correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swartley v. Hoffner, 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (private-school contract claims require reliance on written policies)
- Angus v. Shiley, Inc., 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993) (amount in controversy guided by plaintiff's stated claim and reasonable interpretation)
- LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 515 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (consequential damages require foreseeability and proof with reasonable certainty)
- Carlough v. Amchem Prod., Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1437 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (contempt for punitive damages inclusion in amount in controversy; contract damages context)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (admissible measure for determining jurisdictional amount; legal-certainty standard)