Virginia Diesel & Truck Repair, Inc. v. Lisa Coppinger

Opinion

VLERRO VITIVe Uo. Viol. UY AT LYNCHBURG, VA FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8/4/2026 WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA By. a ere LYNCHBURG DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK

VIRGINIA DIESEL & TRUCK REPAIR, INC., CASE No. 6:26-CV-00094 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER LISA COPPINGER, JUDGE NORMAN K. Moon Defendant.

Virginia Diesel & Truck Repair, Inc. (““VDTR”) sold Lisa Coppinger (“Coppinger”) two remanufactured Caterpillar engines for $42,000, which she then installed on her boat. Dkt. 1 □□ 6— 12. Coppinger has since contacted VDTR claiming that certain parts in the engines are defective; however, she refuses to return the parts to VDTR for inspection and replacement. /d. J§ 13-16. She has threatened to sue VDTR. Jd. § 18. Uncontented to wait for Coppinger to sue it,) VDTR has filed this action seeking a judicial declaration that the parties’ relationship is governed by the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code (““VUCC”) and that Coppinger cannot recover under the VUCC for various reasons. /d. § 23. VDTR also claims that Coppinger defamed it through a series of customer reviews on its website, id. § 19; however, VDTR does not include a claim for defamation in its Complaint. As part of its gatekeeping function, the Court must independently assess whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). VDTR’s Complaint presents no federal statutory or constitutional issue; therefore, federal jurisdiction can

This case reminds the Court of the popular idiom: “let sleeping dogs lie.”

only exist if there is complete diversity of citizenship amongst the parties and the amount-in- controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. VDTR adequately alleges that the parties are diverse, see Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 3–4; however, it fails to allege an amount in controversy over $75,000. First, VDTR relies on $35,000 or more of “defamation” damages to meet the amount-in- controversy requirement but does not plead a defamation claim. Id. ¶ 21. VDTR’s Complaint only

includes a single count for “declaratory judgment.” Id. ¶¶ 22–30. Presumably VDTR would have included a defamation count if it believed it could recover under Virginia defamation law. Cf. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co. v. Hyland, 273 Va. 292, 303–05 (Va. 2007) (holding that opinions are not actionable as defamation). VDTR is the “master of its complaint” and “determines the claims to bring,” Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., 988 F.3d 690, 728 (4th Cir. 2021), and therefore, the Court will not consider damages that VDTR does not seek for the purposes of calculating the amount-in-controversy. Cf. Phelps Oil & Gas, LLC v. Noble Energy Inc., 5 F.4th 1122, 1127 (10th Cir. 2021). Moreover, even if VDTR had asserted a defamation claim, its claim of $35,000 in defamation damages is wholly conclusory and unsupported by facts like: (1) where the defamatory

statements were published, or (2) whether the statements remained public, and if so, for how long. E.g., Ferrari v. Francis, 732 F. Supp. 3d 650, 652 (N.D. Tex. 2024) (dismissing defamation action where amount-in-controversy was alleged in a conclusory manner); Lustig v. Stone, 2015 WL 13708737, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2015) (same). This leaves the $42,000 contract as a source of potential damage.2 But VDTR’s Complaint does not even establish $42,000 in damages; instead, it suggests that Coppinger will seek a lower

2 Because VDTR is preemptively suing under the Declaratory Judgment Act, it is effectively borrowing Coppinger’s claim for breach of a sales contract. See, e.g., Dahl v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 2024 WL 4904163, at *4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 27, 2024). While the Declaratory Judgment Act does not ordinarily constitute an independent cause of action, see Poppleton Now Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. amount for defective parts and untimely delivery. Dkt. 1. Simply put, the current Complaint does not establish an amount-in-controversy of $75,000 (or more) sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under § 1332. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this matter and send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. It is so ordered. Entered this 4th day of August, 2026.

v. La Cite Dev., LLC, 175 F.4th 455, 465 (4th Cir. 2026), it may be used to preempt a prospective, substantive claim by another party.