Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01910/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01910-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Creative Classics Company
Defendant
Camille Garcia
Plaintiff
Carlos Garcia
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Carlos Garcia, a married man; Camille

Garcia, a married woman

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The Creative Classics Company, an

Arizona corporation

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-1910-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiffs sued defendant in the Superior Court of Arizona, claiming that defendant

breached a contract for the sale of real property in Buckeye, Arizona. Plaintiffs request

specific performance of the contract, or, in the alternative, contract damages. Defendant

removed the action to federal court, asserting that the matter falls within federal diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(doc. 4), defendant filed a response (doc. 5), and plaintiff filed a reply (doc. 6), all of which

are before us. The issue is whether plaintiffs' claim for specific performance satisfies the

jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement.

In the Ninth Circuit, the amount in controversy requirement can be satisfied by

looking to either the value of a plaintiff's potential recovery, or the amount that it would cost

a defendant to comply with an adverse judgment. This is referred to as the "either viewpoint"

Case 2:05-cv-01910-FJM Document 7 Filed 10/07/05 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 -

rule. Ridder Bros., Inc. v. Blethen, 142 F.2d 395, 399 (9th Cir. 1944) ("[T]he value of the

thing sought to be accomplished by the action may relate to either or any party to the

action.") (internal quotation omitted); In re Ford Motor Company, 264 F.3d 952, 958 (9th

Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs argue that neither viewpoint would sufficiently meet the amount in

controversy requirement. Plaintiffs contend that there is an insufficient amount in

controversy from the plaintiffs' viewpoint because the very nature of a suit for specific

performance suggests that the value of the property to the plaintiffs is "un-measurable," and

therefore not clearly in excess of $75,000. Plaintiffs contend that there is an insufficient

amount in controversy from the defendant's perspective because, if granted specific

performance, plaintiffs would be required to pay the contract price, therefore reducing

defendant's cost of compliance to zero.

Defendant disputes plaintiffs' contention that there is an insufficient amount in

controversy from the plaintiffs' viewpoint. Defendant suggests that we follow the Fifth and

Eleventh Circuits, both of which have held that, in regard to a claim for specific performance

of real property, the monetary value of the property be considered the amount in controversy.

Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Bullard, 995 F.2d 1046, 1047 (11th Cir. 1993);

Ebensberger v. Sinclair Refining Co., 165 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir. 1948).

Plaintiffs contend, however, that this is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit doctrine

because, under the "either viewpoint" rule, the amount in controversy is "determined by the

value or cost of performance to the parties rather than the objective or contract value of the

property itself." Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum at 2. However, we are not aware of any

Ninth Circuit case which holds that the contract price for real property cannot approximate

the value of the property to the plaintiffs, and accordingly, be deemed the amount in

controversy. Moreover, it is the general rule outside this circuit that "[i]n a suit for specific

performance of a contract to sell land, it is the fair market value of the land that is in

controversy." 20 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE DESKBOOK § 35 (2002). See also 32A AM. JUR. 2D Federal Courts § 1170

Case 2:05-cv-01910-FJM Document 7 Filed 10/07/05 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 -

(1995). Furthermore, if the plaintiffs were correct that a claim for specific performance is

"un-measurable" from the plaintiffs' viewpoint, then the federal courts would rarely, if ever,

have jurisdiction to hear a contract claim for specific performance, absent a sufficient

pendant claim. For these reasons, and given the absence of contrary authority in the Ninth

Circuit, the court will use the contract price as the amount in controversy.

The purchase contract valued the property at $130,470. This price exceeds $75,000,

and therefore there is a sufficient amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is accordingly denied.

Plaintiffs further argue that it is inefficient and inconvenient for the defendant to

remove since there are at least four other actions now pending in the Superior Court of

Arizona regarding this issue. While defendant is correct that this is not a jurisdictionally

significant argument, it is nonetheless compelling, and we regret that the removal will

prevent the consolidation of all cases. The orderly administration of justice would have been

advanced by assignment to a single court.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction (doc. 4).

DATED this 6th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01910-FJM Document 7 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 3