Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01184-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Suzanne M. Jones
Defendant
William L. Magers
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM L. MAGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUZANNE M. JONES,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB 

ORDER SCHEDULING BREIFING ON 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendant Suzanne M. Jones (“Jones”) filed a motion 

with the court on January 8, 2016, in which she sought to

judicially bind Plaintiff William L. Magers (“Magers”) to an

averment that Jones asserts Magers filed in his Bankruptcy Court

proceeding, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, in which Magers 

avers that all of his personal property (including his tools) had 

a value of no more than $18,597.15. Jones also indicates in his 

January 8, 2016 court filing, that Magers gave deposition 

testimony in the instant case from which it could be inferred 

that Magers knew that the value of his tools were no more than 

$18,597.15 at the time Magers filed the instant lawsuit. 

Concerning his tools, Magers alleges in his Complaint

in the instant lawsuit: “Plaintiff has been damaged not less than 

$120,000, which represents the fair market value of [t]ools.” 

(Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 1.) In his prayer for relief Magers 

seeks, among other things, to recover the value of his tools from 

Case 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Jones. (Id. at 5:25; 6:2, 10, 15.) 

Since it is unclear whether the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, as Magers alleges in his Complaint, those 

jurisdictional facts must be proven by “affidavits or other 

evidence.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039

(9th Cir. 2004). In light of this jurisdictional issue, Jones 

and Magers shall file briefs concerning whether the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 as follows:

1. Each party shall file a brief on the aforementioned 

subject matter jurisdiction issue no later than 

February 22, 2016.

2. Each party may file a reply brief no later than 

March 7, 2016.

3. A hearing on the jurisdictional matter is scheduled 

to commence at 10 a.m. on March 10, 2016.

Magers is warned if the evidence provides in the 

referenced brief fails to prove that the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, this lawsuit could be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. If this lawsuit is dismissed, any 

statute of limitations applicable to Magers’s claims in this 

lawsuit might bar Magers from pursuing his claims in state court, 

thereby precluding Magers from obtaining the relief he seeks.

Dated: February 2, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01184-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2