Ehrenfeld v. Webber

499 F. Supp. 1283, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13504
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maine
DecidedAugust 4, 1980
DocketCiv. 76-122 P
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 499 F. Supp. 1283 (Ehrenfeld v. Webber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ehrenfeld v. Webber, 499 F. Supp. 1283, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13504 (D. Me. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge: *

This case is about the Ehrenfelds and the Webbers. They do not get along and probably never will. At issue is whether these Maine counterparts to the Hatfields and the McCoys belong in the federal court.

The question presented is whether plaintiffs, the Ehrenfelds, have properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in the instant action against defendants, the Webbers, the action being essentially one to quiet title to two unimproved parcels of land located in Bristol and Bremen, Maine. More specifically, the question is whether, in this diversity action, the matter in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (1976). For the reasons below, the Court holds that it does not. Accordingly, the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), after a hearing held on July 7, 8, and 9, 1980, without a-jury, and after receiving helpful briefs and listening to oral argument by able counsel on both sides.

I

PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

(A) Complaint

The action was commenced by the filing of a four count complaint on September 2, 1976.

Count I (the quiet title count) seeks a declaratory judgment to quiet title with respect to the two parcels of land referred to above. For convenience, the Court will refer throughout this opinion, as counsel for both sides did at the hearing, to the two parcels of land as parcel A (consisting of approximately 2 acres) and parcel B (consisting of 15/iooths of an acre). 1 No money damage is claimed under Count I. 2

*1285

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

Related

VIOLETTE v. MCKEE
D. Maine, 2021
Emigrant Residential LLC v. Pinti
D. Massachusetts, 2020
Fiorenzano v. Lima
982 A.2d 585 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2009)
Carroll v. Merriwether
921 F. Supp. 828 (District of Columbia, 1996)
Columbia Gas v. Tarbuck
Third Circuit, 1995
James W. Giannetta v. Peter A. Boucher
981 F.2d 1245 (First Circuit, 1992)
Foley v. Horton
780 P.2d 638 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1989)
Wellons v. Zambrano
560 F. Supp. 15 (M.D. Louisiana, 1983)
Brunwasser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
541 F. Supp. 1338 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 F. Supp. 1283, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrenfeld-v-webber-med-1980.