Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services Ltd.

962 F. Supp. 1426, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6159, 1997 WL 219899
CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedApril 25, 1997
DocketCivil Action 96-2534-GTV
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 962 F. Supp. 1426 (Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Central Fiber Corp. v. Site Services Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 1426, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6159, 1997 WL 219899 (D. Kan. 1997).

Opinion

*1427 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VAN BEBBER, Chief Judge.

This breach of contract action is before the court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 10). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

Defendant argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, as the recent amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires. See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 872 (10th Cir.) (“A court lacking jurisdiction ... must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 174, 133 L.Ed.2d 114 (1995). In the complaint, plaintiff alleges damages in the amount of $64,061.89.

On October 19, 1996, Congress amended Section 1332(a), increasing the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction from $50,000 to $75,000. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-317, § 205, 110 Stat. 3847, 3850 (1996). The amendment became effective ninety days after its enactment, January 17, 1997, and is not retroactive. Id.; see Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1319 n. 9 (7th Cir.1997); Conntech Dev. Co. v. University of Conn. Educ. Prop., Inc., 102 F.3d 677, 681 n. 1 (2d Cir.1996); Evans v. Lallande, 1997 WL 170318, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Miss. Mar.10, 1997); Ren-Dan Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 952 F.Supp. 370, 374 n. 1 (W.D.La.1997); Fox Constr., Inc. v. Welter, 1997 WL 31185, at *1 n. 1 (D.Colo. Jan.22, 1997).

“[TJhe amount in controversy requirement is determined at the time the complaint was filed.” Watson v. Blankinship, 20 F.3d 383, 387 (10th Cir.1994); see T.K. Hite Collision Repair, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 790 F.Supp. 254, 255 (D.Kan.1992). Because plaintiff filed its complaint on December 9, 1996, the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement does not apply to this ease.

IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 10) is denied.

The clerk shall mail copies of this order to counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Related

E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Lloyd's & Companies Accident and Casualty Insurance Co. Of Winterthur the Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. American Motorists Insurance Company Andrew Weir Insurance Co., Ltd. Argonaut-Northwest Insurance Co. Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. British National Insurance Company California Union Insurance Company Centennial Insurance Co. Columbia Casualty Employers Insurance of Wausau English & American Insurance Company Ltd. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Great American Insurance Company Highlands Insurance Company Home Insurance Company Insurance Company of North America Liberty Mutual Insurance London & Overseas Insurance Co., Ltd. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. Midland Insurance Co., Mission Insurance Company Mutual Reinsurance Company Ltd. National American Insurance Company of New York Orion Insurance Co. Ltd. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company Southern American Insurance Co. Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Company, Ltd. Transit Casualty Insurance Company United Standard Insurance Co. Ltd. Walbrook Insurance Company Ltd. Hanover Insurance Company Utica Mutual Insurance Company Alba General Insurance Co., Ltd. Anglo-French Insurance Co., Ltd. Anglo Saxon Insurance Co. Ltd. Aviation & General Insurance Co. Bishopsgate Insurance Co. Ltd. British Aviation Insurance Co. Ltd. City General Insurance Co. Cornhill Insurance Company Limited Delta Lloyd Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Dominion Insurance Co. Limited Drake Insurance Co. Ltd. Eagle Star Insurance Co., Ltd Edinburgh Assurance Co., Ltd. Excess Insurance Co., Ltd. Fidelidade Insurance Co. Of Lisbon Helvetia Accident Swiss Insurance Co. Hull Underwriters Association Ltd. Lombard Insurance Co., Ltd. London & Edinburgh Insurance Company, Ltd. London & Edinburgh General Insurance Co., Ltd. Minster Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd. National Casualty Company National Casualty Co. Of America Ltd. New India Assurance Company Ltd. New London Reinsurance Co. Ltd. River Thames Insurance Company Limited Royal Scot Insurance St. Katherine Insurance Co. Ltd. Scottish Lion Insurance Co. Ltd. Southern Insurance Co. Ltd. Sphere Insurance Co. Ltd. Stronghold Insurance Company, Ltd. Swiss National Insurance Co. Swiss Union General Insurance Company, Ltd. The Threadneedle Insurance Co. Ltd. Trent Insurance Co. Ltd. Turegum Insurance Company Unionamerica Insurance Co. Ltd. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. "Winterthur" Swiss Insurance Co. World Auxiliary Insurance Corporation Ltd. World Marine Insurance Corporation Ltd. Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (u.k.) Ltd. Accident and Casualty Insurance Co. Stephen Merrett and Allan Peter Denis Haycock Individually or Through Their Heirs, Executors or Administrators, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similar Situated Underwriters, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Continental Casualty Company American Home Assurance Company Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
241 F.3d 154 (Second Circuit, 2001)
E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Lloyd's & Companies
241 F.3d 154 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Tinkham v. Jenny Craig, Inc.
699 N.E.2d 1255 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
962 F. Supp. 1426, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6159, 1997 WL 219899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-fiber-corp-v-site-services-ltd-ksd-1997.