Behroozi v. James

E.D. Pennsylvania

Behroozi v. James

219 F. Supp. 784, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7470

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 26, 1963

DocketCiv. A. No. 32694

StatusPublished

This text of 219 F. Supp. 784 (Behroozi v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Behroozi v. James, 219 F. Supp. 784, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7470 (E.D. Pa. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

BODY, District Judge.

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident wherein plaintiff allegedly sustained a whiplash injury. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and in the alternative for more specific pleading or for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12, 8 and 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The thrust of these motions goes to an alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in that defendant asserts that plaintiff’s damages, the amount in controversy, do not exceed $10,000.00. Since disposition of this issue will render the other motions unnecessary, they will be considered only if the motion to dismiss is denied ultimately.

The complaint is presumably filed in good faith and appears on its face to sustain a claim sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement. However, assuming that the brief of plaintiff states the entire case for damages, it seems very doubtful that plaintiff will be able to establish a claim for the requisite amount. Plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdictional facts. Garfield Local 13-566, etc. v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp. et al., 172 F.Supp. 230 (D.N.J.1959). Should the plaintiff elect to stand on the present record and his brief, this Court would feel constrained to grant the motion of the defendant to dismiss.

There is no good reason why plaintiff’s case should await dismissal at a later date, with attendant delay and possible prejudice, when a disposition of the issue of jurisdiction could be made now. It is proper procedure to decide the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter upon affidavits, depositions and the complaint. Weinberger v. Toms River Express, Inc., 135 F.Supp. 872 (E.D.Pa.1951). The statements in plaintiff’s brief might be treated as factual admissions of the extent of the damage claims. However, it is a better practice to dispose of an important issue involving jurisdiction on affidavits, depositions or any other competent factual material which plaintiff has and could produce at trial.

Order

AND NOW, this twenty-sixth day of June, 1963, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall inform the Court by affidavits, depositions or other appropriate means within sixty (60) days of the date hereof, of any evidence which he may have and could produce at trial to show the extent of the damages claimed in this action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BODY, District Judge.

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident wherein plaintiff allegedly sustained a whiplash injury. Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and in the alternative for more specific pleading or for summary judgment pursuant to Rules 12, 8 and 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The thrust of these motions goes to an alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter in that defendant asserts that plaintiff’s damages, the amount in controversy, do not exceed $10,000.00. Since disposition of this issue will render the other motions unnecessary, they will be considered only if the motion to dismiss is denied ultimately.

The complaint is presumably filed in good faith and appears on its face to sustain a claim sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement. However, assuming that the brief of plaintiff states the entire case for damages, it seems very doubtful that plaintiff will be able to establish a claim for the requisite amount. Plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdictional facts. Garfield Local 13-566, etc. v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp. et al., 172 F.Supp. 230 (D.N.J.1959). Should the plaintiff elect to stand on the present record and his brief, this Court would feel constrained to grant the motion of the defendant to dismiss.

There is no good reason why plaintiff’s case should await dismissal at a later date, with attendant delay and possible prejudice, when a disposition of the issue of jurisdiction could be made now. It is proper procedure to decide the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter upon affidavits, depositions and the complaint. Weinberger v. Toms River Express, Inc., 135 F.Supp. 872 (E.D.Pa.1951). The statements in plaintiff’s brief might be treated as factual admissions of the extent of the damage claims. However, it is a better practice to dispose of an important issue involving jurisdiction on affidavits, depositions or any other competent factual material which plaintiff has and could produce at trial.

Order

AND NOW, this twenty-sixth day of June, 1963, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall inform the Court by affidavits, depositions or other appropriate means within sixty (60) days of the date hereof, of any evidence which he may have and could produce at trial to show the extent of the damages claimed in this action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F. Supp. 784, 7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 118, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behroozi-v-james-paed-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack