Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02099/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHRISTOPHER JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP., a Delaware

Corporation; GREATER GLENDALE

AUTOMOTIVE LLC, dba J.D.

BYRIDER, an Arizona Limited Liability

Company; DOES 1-100, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2099-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Extension of Time to File a Memorandum

of Law. (Dkt. # 26.) Because federal jurisdiction in this case is predicated on Plaintiff’s

invocation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) (1998),

Plaintiff is required to plead sufficient facts on the face of his complaint establishing that his

claim exceeds $50,000, id. § 2310(d)(3)(B). Plaintiff’s Complaint only seeks $17,458.40 in

economic damages and unspecified consequential and incidental damages. (Dkt. # 6 at 8.)

This Court issued an order explaining why these claims are legally insufficient to

establish federal jurisdiction and ordering Plaintiff to file a memorandum either voluntarily

dismissing the Complaint or explaining why the Court’s legal analysis is in error. (Dkt. #

25.) Plaintiff has responded with this motion for an extension of time. Were Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-02099-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

seeking an extension of time to challenge the Court’s legal analysis, the Court would be

inclined to grant the motion. However, Plaintiff appears to concede that the Court’s legal

analysis is correct; Plaintiff seeks an extension of time merely “to confer with the Client and

obtain supporting documents” for the purpose of valuing “economic losses arising out of the

breach of warranty.” (Dkt. # 26 at 2.) Plaintiff is thus asking this Court to maintain

jurisdiction over a Complaint that does not establish federal jurisdiction so that he can have

more time to value his losses in the speculative hope that those losses might exceed $50,000.

“The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.”

Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing McNutt v.

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). “Dismissal for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, on its face fails

to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” In re Dynamic Random

Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Court does not have jurisdiction on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The

Complaint itself provides no factual basis suggesting that any economic damages beyond

$17,458.40 have been incurred, and it merely asserts that Plaintiff suffered “other

consequential and incidental damages.” (Dkt. # 6 at 8.) That is not sufficient for the Court’s

exercise of jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-17 (9th Cir.

2004) (“Valdez’s state court complaint falls short of even seeking the [$75,000] threshold

amount [for diversity jurisdiction]. The only discrete sum requested is general damages in

excess of $50,000.00; the complaint does not attach a dollar figure to Valdez’s remaining

prayers for relief.”) (internal quotation and ellipsis omitted). The Court will not maintain

jurisdiction over a case in which the Complaint concededly does not establish federal

jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time

(Dkt. # 26) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has (30) thirty days from the date of this

Order to amend his Complaint if Plaintiff can establish a jurisdictional basis for it.

Case 2:08-cv-02099-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/19/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Otherwise, Plaintiff must dismiss his Complaint and bring his claims in state court, in which

there is no amount in controversy requirement. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended

complaint, Plaintiff is ordered to specifically set out the facts underlying any new damage

amount that is claimed.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02099-GMS Document 28 Filed 03/19/09 Page 3 of 3