Carpel v. Saget Studios, Inc. - 326 F. Supp. 1331 (E.D. Pa. 1971)

Rule:

The general statutory provision governing the federal district court's jurisdiction over the subject matter in diversity actions states in part that the district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332. Although plaintiff has the burden of alleging the jurisdictional amount, the rule is that the sum claimed by plaintiff would control the determination of jurisdictional amount, if the claim is made in good faith. For the court to dismiss an action based on plaintiffs' failure to meet the jurisdictional amount of $10,000, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim really is for less than the jurisdictional amount. The issue is whether the theories of damage espoused by plaintiff could as a matter of law yield damages of $10,000 and, in order to correctly determine the measure of damages, the nature of the action first must be determined.

Facts:

Plaintiff customers brought a diversity action against the defendant, Saget Studios, Inc., for breach of contract after it failed to deliver to them the photographs it took at their wedding. Plaintiffs contended that the damages should include the present cost to restage the wedding and to photograph it, loss of sentimental value by the defendant's failure to perform at the time of the actual wedding, emotional distress caused by the defendant's failure to perform at that time and punitive damages. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs’ measure of damages was erroneous and that the application of the correct measure of damages could not yield a verdict of $10,000.00. Defendants further argued that the suit was not within the monetary jurisdictional limits of the federal court. 

Issue:

Did the suit fall below the monetary jurisdictional limits of the federal court, thereby warranting the grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action because the plaintiffs' own testimony established that their consequential damages equal to the cost of reproducing and rephotographing the wedding was less than the minimum amount in controversy required under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332 for diversity actions. The court found that Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, § 2-715 (1970) provided that the plaintiffs were entitled to both incidental and consequential damages for the alleged breach of contract because the sale of photographs was a sale of goods within Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 12A, § 2-105 (1970). The court ruled that speculative damages were not allowed and found that, because there was not a market value or a replacement value for photographs of the type involved, the only arguable cost related measure of damages was the estimated cost of restaging the wedding and taking photographs. The plaintiffs admitted this cost was less than $10,000, which was below the minimum required amount in controversy.