Wilfredo Quinones-Velazquez v. James Maroulis
677 F. App'x 801
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Quinones-Velazquez (U.S. citizen, Pa. resident) and Henao (Colombian citizen/resident) sued their former Pennsylvania attorney, Maroulis, after he allegedly abandoned their immigration representation, kept a $350 deposit, and lost or converted their file.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims: conversion, legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, loss of consortium, and UTPCPL fraud; they sought compensatory, treble (UTPCPL), attorney’s, and punitive damages.
- Plaintiffs’ complaint sought roughly $90,752: ~$8,350 (deposit and file reconstruction), $20,000 lost wages, $60,000 non-economic (loss of consortium), ~$7,750 attorney’s fees, plus treble and punitive damages.
- Maroulis moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing the federal court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000; the District Court dismissed solely for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the District Court misapplied the legal-certainty standard in evaluating whether plaintiffs’ claimed damages could satisfy the jurisdictional amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs satisfied the $75,000 amount-in-controversy for diversity jurisdiction | Alleged damages (compensatory, treble UTPCPL, attorney’s fees, punitive) bring controversy over $75,000 | Plaintiffs’ claimed damages are legally insufficient; some claims (loss of consortium, UTPCPL) lack merit so amount is below threshold | Vacated and remanded — court misapplied the legal-certainty test; plaintiff’s good-faith demand controls unless recovery for amount is legally impossible |
| Whether loss-of-consortium and UTPCPL claims can be disregarded in jurisdictional inquiry | Loss of consortium and UTPCPL claims are colorable; emotional and consequential damages and fees plausibly recoverable | Those claims lack substantive merit (e.g., loss of consortium requires physical injury; UTPCPL inapplicable to attorneys) so they should be excluded | District Court erred by resolving merits; such scrutiny is improper at 12(b)(1) stage unless claims are wholly insubstantial or frivolous |
| Whether punitive damages may be counted toward amount in controversy | Punitive damages are available on some tort claims and may push amount over $75,000 given alleged fiduciary misconduct and vulnerability of clients | Plaintiffs’ punitive-demand is excessive relative to compensatory damages and may be conjured to fabricate jurisdiction | Punitive damages must be considered unless patently frivolous; District Court failed to show they were legally impossible and improperly discounted them |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Steven & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2016) (plaintiff’s claimed sum controls absent legal certainty to the contrary)
- Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 1997) (legal-certainty standard and minimal merits scrutiny at jurisdictional stage)
- Lunderstadt v. Colafella, 885 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1989) (12(b)(1) threshold lower than 12(b)(6); claims must be wholly insubstantial to be dismissed)
- Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 (3d Cir. 1993) (punitive damages may be disregarded only if patently frivolous; close scrutiny when punitive damages comprise bulk of amount)
- Mest v. Cabot Corp., 449 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2006) (Pennsylvania law permits consequential damages for intentional torts)
- Delahanty v. First Pa. Bank, N.A., 464 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (discussion of recoverable emotional and consequential damages and availability of punitive damages)