SAMPSON v. WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL GEORGIA INC, 5:12-cv-00121

Court considers Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a diversity action over alleged encroachment and damages to plaintiff's property.
Plaintiff Isaac L. Sampson alleges defendant encroached on his property and seeks damages, rent-like relief, and ejectment.
Plaintiff amended to specify damages between $118,448 and $176,448 after a prior order to itemize the amount in controversy.
Court requires amount in controversy >$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs; diversity is conceded by defendant.
Court evaluates whether plaintiff’s four damage bases—half-property non-use ($57,500), time and costs ($57,948.80 + $10,000), and pain-and-suffering ($50,000)—satisfy the jurisdictional amount.
Court ultimately grants motion and dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000	Sampson asserts damages exceed $75,000 based on encroachment, time, and expenses.	Defendant argues damages fail to show a $75,000 controversy; some bases are unsupported or improper.	No; plaintiff fails to establish the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Whether damages for encroachment, non-use, and property value satisfy jurisdiction	Encroachment and non-use yield $57,500.	Appraisal value and encroachment link are inadequately supported and not clearly tied to present damages.	Assumes encroachment damages but ultimately insufficient to exceed $75,000.
Whether time, effort, and litigation costs can be counted toward the amount in controversy	Claims $57,948.80 for his time and about $10,000 in miscellaneous expenses.	Attorney fees and plaintiff’s time are not recoverable unless statute/contract; not shown.	Not countable toward the amount in controversy; damages must be exclusive of costs and interest.
Whether pain-and-suffering damages are cognizable under amount in controversy or related to liability	Requests $50,000 for pain and suffering due to attorney withdrawal and lack of attorney general help.	No legal basis tying these damages to defendant; not recoverable here.	Plaintiff’s pain-and-suffering damages are inappropriate/frivolous and not cognizable for jurisdictional purposes.

Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l HealthCare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2008) (facial vs. factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction; use of pleadings only)
Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805 (11th Cir. 2003) (burden to plead facts creating jurisdiction with sufficient particularity)
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2000) (amount in controversy must be based on damages exclusive of costs and interest)
Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (attorney’s fees may not be included in amount in controversy absent statute or contract)