1:20-cv-00472
D. Me.May 4, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Gregory Paul Violette alleges Capital One promised to remove two accounts from his credit reports after a settlement, then reversed course and refused to notify the credit bureaus.
- Violette demanded $550,000 in punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and removal of the accounts.
- Capital One received the complaint by certified mail, removed the not-yet-filed action to federal court on diversity grounds, relying on the $550,000 punitive damages demand to satisfy the amount-in-controversy.
- Violette subsequently filed the complaint in Maine Superior Court; he did not oppose removal.
- The district court found that punitive damages could not plausibly supply the jurisdictional amount because the only claim appears to be breach of contract and Maine law bars punitive damages for breach of contract.
- The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, remanded the case to state court, and deemed Capital One’s motion to dismiss moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity jurisdiction — amount in controversy | Violette’s $550,000 punitive damages demand satisfies the $75,000 threshold | The pleaded punitive damages satisfy jurisdictional amount | Held: No diversity jurisdiction; defendant failed to plausibly show amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 |
| Availability of punitive damages under Maine law | Punitive damages are requested for Capital One’s conduct | Capital One relied on the punitive demand to establish jurisdiction | Held: Punitive damages are unavailable for breach of contract under Maine law, so punitive demand cannot support jurisdiction |
| Pleading standard for amount-in-controversy on removal | N/A (Violette asserted amount) | Defendant must allege underlying facts supporting amount when relying on plaintiff’s assertion | Held: Under Dart Cherokee and Gaus, removal notice lacked plausible underlying facts; remand appropriate |
| Merits-based relief and procedural motions (12(b)(4), 12(b)(6), filing injunction) | Seeks relief and damages | Moved to dismiss for insufficient process and failure to state a claim; sought filing injunction against plaintiff | Held: Court did not reach merits; motions moot after remand; declined to impose filing injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Danca v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 185 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (removal statutes are strictly construed and defendant bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014) (removal notice must plausibly allege amount in controversy when parties do not contest it)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (defendant must set forth underlying facts in removal petition to support amount-in-controversy allegation)
- Bell v. Preferred Life Assur. Soc. of Montgomery, Ala., 320 U.S. 238 (1943) (both actual and punitive damages are considered in determining amount in controversy)
- Stull v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 745 A.2d 975 (Me. 2000) (punitive damages unavailable for breach of contract under Maine law)
- López-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc., 754 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (failing to invoke federal-question jurisdiction in the removal notice can waive that basis for removal)
- Rosselló-González v. Calderón-Serra, 398 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (ambiguities about the source of law should be resolved against removal)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (removal statutes are to be strictly construed)