Scott v. Bender
948 F. Supp. 2d 859
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Scott sued Bender (and previously Flather) in the district court for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, § 1983, and breach of contract; later the court dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
- Scott’s § 1983 claim was time-barred under Illinois two-year statute of limitations, leaving only state-law claims to potentially invoke diversity jurisdiction.
- Scott’s amended complaint sought $600,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages across four counts, but the court found no evidence to meet the $75,000 diversity threshold.
- The court previously held Scott could not establish the amount in controversy by competent proof beyond a $10,000 affidavit for out-of-pocket costs.
- False imprisonment claim is time-barred under Illinois two-year limitations, affecting any punitive-damages claim related to that count.
- The court recharacterized Scott’s Rule 60(b) motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, within the permitted 28-day window, and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction via diversity | Scott contends damages exceed $75,000 and support diversity. | Scott failed to present competent evidence of jurisdictional damages above $75,000. | Diversity jurisdiction not established; no jurisdiction over claims. |
| Whether punitive-damages allegations can salvage jurisdiction | Punitive-damages pleadings should support the $75,000 threshold. | Punitive-damages claims lack plausible malice and time-barred false imprisonment claim cannot support such damages. | Plaintiff failed to plausibly plead punitive damages above $75,000. |
| Whether the motion is governed by Rule 60(b) or Rule 59(e) | Motion seeks Rule 60(b) relief from judgment. | Motion should be treated as Rule 59(e) to correct manifest legal errors. | Motion treated as Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment; denied. |
| Whether Scott pleaded sufficient facts to support jurisdictional damages | Alleged $300,000 punitive damages across counts show jurisdictional amount. | Evidence insufficient; only $10,000 proven; other harms vague and unsubstantiated. | Insufficient jurisdictional facts; no basis for $75,000 threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meridian Security Insurance Co. v. Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (burden to prove jurisdictional facts by preponderance of the evidence)
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. Supreme Court 1936) (jurisdictional proof required to show probable jurisdiction)
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012) (limits on reliance on statute-of-limitations for § 1983 claims in jurisdiction)
- In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997) (case discussing jurisdictional amount in controversy)
- Albright v. Oliver, 975 F.2d 343 (7th Cir. 1992) (false arrest timing and limitations in § 1983 context)
- Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) (pleading to show timely–claim and limitations considerations)
- Frye v. O’Neill, 166 Ill.App.3d 963 (4th Dist.1988) (malice cannot be inferred solely from lack of probable cause)
- Templeman Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 316 Ill.App.3d 379 (1st Dist.2000) (malice required for punitive damages exceeds that for underlying tort)
- Swick v. Liautaud, 169 Ill.2d 504 (1996) (punitive damages require higher degree of malice)
- Thieme v. MacArthur, 285 Ill.App.3d 242 (2d Dist.1936) (difference between legal malice and actual malice for punitive damages)
- Adams v. Zayre Corp., 148 Ill.App.3d 704 (2d Dist.1986) (examples where punitive damages not warranted for false imprisonment)