Salkoff v. Dissik

189 F. Supp. 314
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 27, 1960
DocketCiv. A. No. 28435
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 F. Supp. 314 (Salkoff v. Dissik) 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
Salkoff v. Dissik, 189 F. Supp. 314 (E.D. Pa. 1960).

Opinion

EGAN, District Judge.

Defendants (husband and wife) move to dismiss plaintiffs’ (husband and wife) diversity tort action for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there is no possibility that a verdict in excess of $10,000 could be sustained. Defendants aver that plaintiffs’ injuries were minimal and that their medical expenses totaled $37.

On the other hand, plaintiffs allege-that an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed the-wife plaintiff’s injuries as acute lumbo-sacral strain, sciatic syndrome and a possible protruded disc syndrome which may require surgery and a long hospital stay.

We believe it to be well settled that in a diversity case, where the plaintiff alleges the damages to be in excess of the jurisdictional amount, the Court will not dismiss the complaint unless there is a legal certainty that the damages will not reach or approximate this amount. See Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKean, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 753; Sicilia v. Tassell, D.C.E.D.Pa.1958, 163 F.Supp. 371; Hinchliffe v. Carr, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1958, 22 F.R.D. 187.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be and hereby is denied.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Smith v. U. S. Fire Insurance
350 F. Supp. 1174 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 F. Supp. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salkoff-v-dissik-paed-1960.