Suarez v. Mosaic Sales Solutions US Operating Co., LLC
1:17-cv-00477
S.D.N.Y.Jul 7, 2017Background
- Suarez alleges Mosaic rescinded a job offer after a criminal-background check, in violation of the New York City Fair Chance Act (NYCFCA).
- Suarez quit his previous job based on Mosaic’s offer; Mosaic later informed him in November 2016 that the offer was rescinded.
- Suarez ultimately obtained other employment and seeks damages up to $100,000 (lost wages, compensatory, punitive, attorneys’ fees/costs).
- Mosaic moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Suarez failed to plead the $75,000 diversity-jurisdiction amount in controversy.
- Mosaic submitted evidence that the offered job was seasonal/part-time (approx. $2,400 total, or possibly as little as $960 if eliminated early) and that Mosaic later offered Suarez six permanent positions; Suarez did not dispute these facts.
- The district court found Mosaic rebutted the complaint’s amount-in-controversy presumption and granted dismissal; case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has diversity jurisdiction (>$75,000) | Suarez seeks up to $100,000 in damages; compensatory/punitive could reach jurisdictional minimum | Mosaic says actual damages are small (seasonal job pay ~$2,400 or $960) and presumption as to complaint’s amount is rebutted by evidence | Court: No jurisdiction; Mosaic rebutted the presumption and amount in controversy not met |
| Whether punitive damages and attorneys’ fees can make up the shortfall | Suarez asserts emotional/compensatory harms could bridge gap | Mosaic argues limited back pay, unsuccessful claims for large punitive/fee awards given facts and limits on ratios; attorneys’ fees not included unless recoverable as of right | Court: Compensatory/punitive/fees unlikely to reach $75,000; cannot rely on speculative awards |
| Whether plaintiff may conduct discovery or submit further affidavits on amount in controversy | Suarez requested leave for further evidence/discovery | Mosaic opposed; argued plaintiff had opportunity and identified nothing to gather | Court: Denied—Suarez had chance to present evidence and failed to identify what additional discovery would show |
| Whether plaintiff’s factual allegations control jurisdictional inquiry | Suarez relied on complaint’s stated damages as good-faith representation | Mosaic introduced extrinsic evidence to challenge amount; plaintiff’s allegations insufficient when rebutted | Court: Extrinsic evidence permitted; allegations insufficient once rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) review and plaintiff’s burden to prove jurisdictional facts)
- J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs., 386 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings on jurisdictional issues)
- Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216 (2d Cir.) (presumption that complaint’s amount in controversy is made in good faith and how it may be rebutted)
- A.F.A. Tours, Inc. v. Whitchurch, 937 F.2d 82 (2d Cir.) (punitive damages may be included in amount in controversy if permitted by law)
- Stampf v. Long Island R. Co., 761 F.3d 192 (2d Cir.) (due process considerations limit excessive punitive-to-compensatory ratios)
- Givens v. W. T. Grant Co., 457 F.2d 612 (2d Cir.) (attorneys’ fees excluded from amount in controversy unless recoverable as of right)
- Hallingby v. Hallingby, 574 F.3d 51 (2d Cir.) (statement of diversity jurisdiction requirements)