Phillips v. Fox Ridge Resort et al.

2003 DNH 144

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: August 22, 2003
• Docket: CV-02-586-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Phillips v . Fox Ridge Resort et a l . CV-02-586-B 08/22/03 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Helene Phillips

v. Civil No. 02-586-B Opinion N o . 2003 DNH 144 Fox Ridge Resort, et a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Helene Phillips, a Rhode Island resident, brings this

diversity action against defendants, Fox Ridge Resort, Davenport

Realty Trust, and an entity abbreviated as “FRNC, LLC,” all

residents of New Hampshire. In her two count complaint, Phillips

alleges defendants’ negligence resulted in an injury to her right

calf. Defendants move to dismiss Phillips’ complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. N o . 14) See 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a) (1993 & Supp. 2003). Specifically, defendants argue that

Phillips’ claims do not meet the amount in controversy ($75,000)

required under § 1332(a). For the reasons discussed below, I

deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On November 1 1 , 2001, Phillips was a visitor to Fox Ridge

Resort in North Conway, New Hampshire. During her stay at the

-1- resort, Phillips struck her leg against a protruding razor sharp

piece of loose molding in a bathroom. As a result, Phillips

suffered a “severe traumatic avulsion laceration” to her calf.

Pl.’s O b j . to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss. In the months that

followed the injury, Phillips endured a “horrific” infection and

required nine months of treatment at The Wound Recovery Treatment

Center at The Kent Hospital in Rhode Island. Id. For two months

during this time period, Phillips was restricted to her home as a

result of the pain and infection in her leg. She required the

services of home care nursing for three months following the

accident and also needed “numerous debridements of the wound.”

Id. In addition, Phillips suffered edema in her leg and endured

three skin grafts. The wound ultimately left permanent scarring

on Phillips’ calf.

Phillips seeks recovery for over $12,000 in medical bills.

In addition, Phillips requests damages for her pain and

suffering, lost wages, permanent scarring and disfigurement, loss

of life’s pleasures and loss of function. Initially, in her

complaint, Phillips sought damages in the amount of one million

dollars; however, in her objection to defendants’ motion to

dismiss, Phillips stated her damages were “in excess of

-2- [$150,000].” Pl.’s O b j . to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss.

ANALYSIS

In order for this court to have subject matter jurisdiction

in a diversity suit, Phillips must demonstrate that she fulfills

the $75,000 minimum amount in controversy requirement. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a); Bull NH Information Syss. v . Hutson, 229 F.3d

321, 328 (1st Cir. 2000). Generally, the amount the plaintiff

claims in her complaint is sufficient to meet the amount in

controversy, if the claim is made in good faith. See S t . Paul

Mercury Indemn. C o . v . Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938).

“If the face of the complaint reveals, to a legal certainty, that

the controversy cannot involve the requisite amount, jurisdiction

will not attach.” Coventry Sewage Assocs. v . Dworkin Realty Co.,

71 F.3d 1 , 6 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing S t . Paul, 303 U.S. at 289,

2 9 1 ) ; see Spielman v . Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.

2001)(“It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is

really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify

dismissal.”).

Defendants argue that all of Phillips’ damages “will not

rise near to the level of [$75,000].” Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at

3. Their argument fails because the standard to fulfill the

-3- amount in controversy requirement is not will the damages

ultimately meet the jurisdictional amount. Instead the

requirement asks whether, at this stage, it is a legal certainty

that the damages will not meet the requisite amount. Phillips’

medical bills total over $12,000. Her lost wages, pain and

suffering, permanent scarring and other damages could,

objectively speaking, meet the minimum $75,000. As such, she

meets the amount in controversy requirement and her diversity

suit is therefore properly before this court. I deny defendants’

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, I deny defendants’ motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. N o . 1 4 ) .

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

August 2 2 , 2003

cc: John P. LeGrand, Esq.

-4- Randall F. Cooper, Esq. Paul W . Chant, Esq.

-5-