United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 22-1471

SANDI ANDERSEN, d/b/a Dharma Nutrition, LLC, d/b/a Dharma 

Healing Center,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

VAGARO, INC.,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Mary S. McElroy, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Kayatta, Lynch, and Gelpí,

Circuit Judges.

Megan Sheehan, with whom Sheehan & Associates was on brief, 

for appellant.

Sally P. McDonald, with whom Cameron & Mittleman, LLP was on 

brief, for appellee.

January 3, 2023
- 2 -

GELPÍ, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Sandi 

Andersen ("Andersen") brought a complaint for contract claims 

against Vagaro, Inc. ("Vagaro") in federal district court based on 

diversity jurisdiction. Vagaro filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(1), arguing that 

Andersen insufficiently pled that her claims met the amount in 

controversy required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). After Andersen 

failed to provide further substantiation for her jurisdictional 

claim, the district court concurred with Vagaro and dismissed 

Andersen's complaint. We affirm.

I. Background

A. Facts

As a preliminary matter, we presume the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint, minus conclusory allegations, and 

supplemented by Vagaro's unchallenged proffer. See Merlonghi v. 

United States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Valentin v. 

Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001)) (crediting 

"plaintiff's well-pled factual allegations and draw[ing] all 

reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor" when reviewing a 

FRCP 12(b)(1) motion). Thus, the following constitute the facts 

before us. 

Andersen owned and operated a holistic healing center, 

Dharma Nutrition, LLC, also known as Dharma Healing Center 

("Dharma"), from 2009 to 2019. Dharma offered wellness services 
- 3 -

such as massage, reiki, and yoga. In December 2018, Andersen 

contracted with Vagaro for business management software capable of 

managing Dharma's database of client contact and billing 

information; booking appointments; and processing monthly 

membership fees, point-of-sale transactions, and employee payroll. 

Per Andersen, Dharma's issues began in February 2019 

after Vagaro, despite receiving instructions on which clients and 

services to import, migrated all of Dharma's data to its platform. 

Following the transfer, Dharma's clients were frequently double 

booked, unable to book services with their desired practitioner, 

or charged twice for services. Vagaro's inability to resolve those 

issues forced Andersen to give away free services on at least 

thirty occasions and caused her to lose clients and employees. 

Andersen also alleged that the Vagaro software erroneously

cancelled hundreds of Dharma's monthly memberships. Citing the 

financial impact of losing the monthly memberships and "bad will" 

from the software issues, Andersen closed Dharma in July 2019. 

B. Procedural History

On July 7, 2021, Andersen filed a complaint against 

Vagaro in the United States District Court for the District of 

Rhode Island asserting diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a). She alleged that her claims -- breach of contract, 

breach of implied warranty, and breach of the duty of good faith 

and fair dealing -- exceeded the statutory amount-in-controversy 
- 4 -

requirement and demanded $7,186,785 in damages. Vagaro filed a 

motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction,1 asserting that Andersen's complaint failed to 

sufficiently establish that her claims met the amount-incontroversy requirement. More specifically, Vagaro stated that 

the software at issue cost only "a few thousand dollars" and that 

because it is not obvious that Andersen sustained over $7 million 

in damages based on the claims asserted, she must provide 

additional factual support to establish jurisdiction. Andersen 

stood pat, stating that the complaint provided sufficient facts 

showing that Vagaro's breach of contract significantly harmed 

Dharma by resulting in significant damages, including the loss of 

profits. The district court granted Vagaro's motion to dismiss. 

This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

We review a district court's dismissal for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech 

LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir. 2012). A federal court has original 

jurisdiction over a civil state law claim when there is diversity 

of citizenship between the parties and "the matter in controversy 

1 Vagaro also moved to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The 

district court did not reach this claim because it dismissed on 

jurisdictional grounds. Because we affirm on the same basis, we 

do not address whether Andersen failed to state a claim. 
- 5 -

exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 

costs." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). At issue here is the latter 

requirement that, put another way, demands that "more than $75,000 

[is] at stake." Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42.2 

The party invoking diversity jurisdiction bears the 

burden of establishing that the amount-in-controversy requirement 

is satisfied. See Stewart v. Tupperware Corp., 356 F.3d 335, 338 

(1st Cir. 2004). The well-established test for deciding whether 

the amount requirement is met states: "[T]he sum claimed by the 

plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. 

It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for 

less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal." Id.

(quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 

283, 288–89 (1938)); see 14AA Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 3702 (4th ed. 2011); Joseph W. Glannon, 

Examples & Explanations: Civil Procedure 96 (8th ed. 2018). While 

normally "a plaintiff's general allegation that the dispute 

exceeds the jurisdictional minimum is sufficient to support 

jurisdiction," when challenged, the plaintiff "has the burden of 

alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is 

not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the 

jurisdictional amount." Dep't of Recreation & Sports of P.R. v. 

2 Vagaro did not challenge the parties' diversity. 
- 6 -

World Boxing Ass'n, 942 F.2d 84, 88 (1st Cir. 1991); see St. Paul 

Mercury Indemnity Co., 303 U.S. at 287 n.10 ("It is plaintiff's 

burden both to allege with sufficient particularity the facts 

creating jurisdiction . . . and, if appropriately 

challenged, . . . to support the allegation."). 

To fend off a jurisdictional challenge, a plaintiff may 

amend the complaint or submit additional documentation, such as 

affidavits, medical reports, or interrogatories. See Abdel-Aleem, 

665 F.3d at 42–43; McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 

298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (holding that a plaintiff, when 

challenged, must provide "competent proof" supporting 

jurisdictional claim). We have made clear that merely reiterating 

general descriptions of damages is insufficient, particularly when 

a plaintiff is put on notice of the complaint's deficiencies by a 

FRCP 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42–43 

(affirming dismissal where plaintiff proffered only "bald 

statements and round numbers" in response to a jurisdictional 

challenge); see Diefenthal v. Civ. Aeronautics Bd., 681 F.2d 1039, 

1053 (5th Cir. 1982) (explaining that when the damage amount is 

challenged, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the factual 

basis for the claim). 

Here, Vagaro contested the sufficiency of Andersen's 

jurisdictional pleading and thus, the burden shifted back to her 

to present "with 'sufficient particularity' facts that in some way 
- 7 -

support the contention that there is more than $75,000 at stake," 

Abdel-Aleem, 665 F.3d at 42 (quoting Dep't of Recreation & Sports 

of P.R., 942 F.2d at 88). Instead of proffering additional factual 

support for her claim, Andersen simply relied on the face of her 

complaint. In her response to Vagaro's motion to dismiss, she 

stated: "The Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts that the 

Defendant's breach of contract resulted in significant damages to 

the Plaintiff, including the loss of profits." Andersen's strategy 

of speaking in "general terms" and "offer[ing] no particulars" is 

exactly what we rejected in Abdel-Aleem. See id. at 43–45 

(affirming dismissal where plaintiff, when challenged, failed to 

adequately substantiate jurisdictional claim). 

Andersen attempts to distinguish the present case from 

Abdel-Aleem. Unfortunately, she misses the thrust of our holding. 

In Abdel-Aleem, the plaintiff brought an abuse of process claim 

alleging emotional distress and damage to his reputation, 

emotional tranquility, and privacy. The complaint, however, 

stated only that "the amount of [sic] controversy exceeds, 

exclusive of interest and costs, the amount of ($75,000), pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332." Id. at 40. When challenged for failing to 

support his allegation that the amount in controversy was met, the 

plaintiff amended his complaint, added claims for intentional and 

negligent infliction of emotional distress, and claimed the amount 

at issue was "at least $1,000,000." Id. at 40–41. He further 
- 8 -

alleged physical and emotional distress, loss of employment, and 

"thousands of dollars in legal fees." Id. at 41. Nevertheless, 

we still concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the amountin-controversy requirement because he offered no factual support 

for his jurisdictional claim. Id. at 43–45 (noting plaintiff 

continued to generally describe damages and provided no 

calculation of alleged lost wages or substantiation for his claim 

of legal fees). 

At the outset, Andersen's demand for damages is not

conclusive proof that "more than $75,000 [is] at stake." See id.

at 42–43. While Andersen demanded $7,186,785 (a highly specific 

figure, unlike Abdel-Aleem's "at least $1,000,000" claim), 

claiming more than a "round number" does not alone satisfy the 

amount-in-controversy requirement. See id. at 43. As we explained 

in Abdel-Aleem, "giv[ing] due credit to the good faith claims of 

the plaintiff" does not require the court to blindly "accept[] 

every claim of damages at face value," id. (quoting Diefenthal, 

681 F.2d at 1052), given the court's duty "to police the border of 

federal jurisdiction," id. at 45 (quoting Spielman v. Genzyme 

Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2001)). 

Despite Abdel-Aleem's warning to provide substantiation 

for the amount claimed once challenged, 665 F.3d at 43, Andersen 

relied entirely on her complaint. Thus, from her complaint, we 

understand the factual basis for Andersen's jurisdictional claim 
- 9 -

to be free services given away on at least thirty occasions; 

hundreds of cancelled monthly memberships; the loss of over 8,000 

clients and two employees; and lost profits from Dharma's closure. 

While Andersen, in contrast to the plaintiff in Abdel-Aleem, 

provided facts to support her damage claim and not just "conclusory 

statements," id. at 45, she similarly failed to provide any numeric 

substantiation or evaluation establishing that her claims exceeded 

$75,000, let alone over $7 million. Andersen attached no monetary 

value to services given away or to monthly memberships, clients, 

and employees lost. Further, while Andersen claimed losses 

associated with Dharma's closure, she proffered nothing as to 

Dharma's profits or overall value other than calling the company 

"successful." Notably, Andersen admitted at oral argument that 

based on the face of the complaint, there were insufficient facts 

to reach the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. 

Andersen's silence is perplexing. She had possession of 

or easy access to records -- such as pricing of services and 

memberships, tax returns, and business receipts or 

records -- which might have substantiated her claim, but she did 

not use them. Given Andersen's admission and disinclination to 

support her claim when challenged, we cannot conclude on the record 

that Andersen met her burden of establishing the amount in 

controversy required for diversity jurisdiction. 
- 10 -

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order of 

dismissal is affirmed. Costs are awarded to Appellee, Vagaro.