Seeno v. Puckett
7:14-cv-05003
| D. Neb. | Feb 23, 2015Background
- Seeno (California resident) contracted with Puckett d/b/a White Elk Ranch (Nebraska resident) to hunt three bighorn rams; the "summary of hunt details" listed price $20,000 per ram, totaling $60,000.00.
- Seeno paid a $10,000 deposit on November 1, 2012; Puckett later requested another $10,000 which Seeno did not pay and sought more photos before paying.
- Puckett returned the $10,000 deposit on March 25, 2014 and informed Seeno the animals were no longer available; Seeno sued seeking specific performance to enforce the contract.
- Puckett moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—amount in controversy) and 12(b)(4); he later withdrew the 12(b)(4) challenge but sought reconsideration to have the 12(b)(1) motion decided.
- The district court granted reconsideration, treated the 12(b)(1) motion as a factual attack, reviewed contract terms and extrinsic evidence, and focused on the value of the specific performance remedy sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (amount in controversy) | Seeno suggested higher-valued similar rams (valued at $30,000 each later) could satisfy the $75,000 threshold | Puckett argued the contract and requested relief (specific performance) are worth only $60,000, below the jurisdictional amount | Court held no jurisdiction: specific performance enforces a $60,000 contract, insufficient for § 1332; case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427 (8th Cir. 1993) (district court has broad power to determine its subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may consider matters outside pleadings in Rule 12(b)(1) factual attacks)
- Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes facial and factual attacks under Rule 12(b)(1))
- Drobnak v. Andersen Corp., 561 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2009) (party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove amount in controversy by preponderance)
- Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2000) (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden to prove jurisdictional amount)
- Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2002) (court must conclude from pleadings and proof that damages exceed jurisdictional threshold)