The Congregation Of Beth Israel Of Mahoney City, PA v. Congregation Of Beth Israel Of Mahoney City, PA
3:16-cv-01671
M.D. Penn.Aug 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Beth Israel Congregation (PA nonprofit) alleges Defendant Eitz Chayim (NY nonprofit) removed stained glass windows from Plaintiff’s 1923 Mahanoy City synagogue in 2010 and installed some in Defendant’s Long Island synagogue.
- Plaintiff filed a state-court complaint asserting conversion, conspiracy to defraud, replevin, breach of oral contract, and unjust enrichment, seeking $75,000 in damages or, alternatively, return of the windows. Counts II–V were pleaded in the alternative.
- Defendant removed to federal court based on diversity, asserting the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, relying on communications claiming >$100,000 value and an appraisal valuing the windows at $192,500.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing federal jurisdiction is lacking because defendant failed to prove the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The appraisal relied on by Defendant was based on photographs, Google Maps, and ‘‘extraordinary assumptions’’ (no on-site inspection, uncertain number of windows, assumed condition), and aggregated values of up to 21 windows though some were unlocated or not installed at Defendant’s site.
- The Court found the appraisal insufficiently reliable to satisfy the statutory preponderance standard and held doubts must be resolved in favor of remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists because amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 | Plaintiff contends Def. failed to prove >$75,000; Complaint seeks return of windows and unliquidated damages so state rule bars specific demand | Def. argues amount in controversy satisfied by Plaintiff’s past statements, aggregated $75,000-per-count demands, and a $192,500 appraisal | Court held Defendant did not meet its burden to prove >$75,000 by a preponderance; remand granted |
| Whether the complaint’s demand can be treated as amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. §1446(c) | Plaintiff notes complaint seeks nonmonetary relief and Pennsylvania bars specific sums for unliquidated damages | Def. argued Complaint’s language estimating $75,000 and appraiser’s valuation show damages exceed threshold | Court held complaint cannot be deemed amount because it seeks return of property and state rule prohibits specific sum; Defendant must prove amount in notice and by preponderance when contested |
| Reliability of Defendant’s appraisal evidence to establish amount in controversy | Plaintiff argues appraisal is unreliable due to assumptions and lack of inspection | Defendant argues the appraisal establishes value (> $75,000) by a preponderance | Court held appraisal insufficiently reliable (extraordinary assumptions, uncertain window count/location, no inspection) to carry Defendant’s burden |
| Whether alternative pleading of multiple counts allows aggregation to exceed jurisdictional threshold | Plaintiff emphasizes counts are pleaded in the alternative and state rule limits specific demands | Defendant briefly relied on per-count demands to total >$75,000 | Court found alternative pleading and state pleading rules defeat aggregation argument; issue lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (party asserting federal jurisdiction in removal bears burden at all stages)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (when amount in controversy is contested, parties submit proof and court decides by preponderance)
- Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2004) (doubts about removability resolved in favor of remand)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) (amount in controversy measured by reasonable reading of value of rights litigated)
- Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142 (3d Cir. 1993) (measure amount in controversy by realistic estimations, not "pie-in-the-sky")