DUMBRELL v. POWAPOS, INC., 16cv2305-LAB (MDD). (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170531c45
Visitors: 4
Filed: May 30, 2017
Latest Update: May 30, 2017
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Dumbrell and Rasori sued PowaPos for breach of contract. Plaintiffs admit that the Court lacks jurisdiction unless it counts anticipated attorney's fees towards the amount in controversy. Our circuit hasn't decided whether "attorney's fees that are anticipated but unaccrued" at the time of filing "may be included in the amount-in-controversy." Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644 , 649 (9th Circ. 2016). The Court a
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . Dumbrell and Rasori sued PowaPos for breach of contract. Plaintiffs admit that the Court lacks jurisdiction unless it counts anticipated attorney's fees towards the amount in controversy. Our circuit hasn't decided whether "attorney's fees that are anticipated but unaccrued" at the time of filing "may be included in the amount-in-controversy." Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644 , 649 (9th Circ. 2016). The Court ad..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Dumbrell and Rasori sued PowaPos for breach of contract. Plaintiffs admit that the Court lacks jurisdiction unless it counts anticipated attorney's fees towards the amount in controversy. Our circuit hasn't decided whether "attorney's fees that are anticipated but unaccrued" at the time of filing "may be included in the amount-in-controversy." Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Circ. 2016).
The Court adopts Judge Easterbrook's position: "legal expenses that lie in the future and can be avoided by the defendant's prompt satisfaction of the plaintiff's demand are not an amount `in controversy' when the suit is filed." Gardynski-Leschuck v. Ford Motor Co., 142 F.3d 955, 959 (7th Cir. 1998). Since Dumbrell and Rasori admit that, excluding future fees, the amount at stake is below $75,000, the Court lacks jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The case is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to filing in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
