2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-3-2015

Ronald Emrit v. Independent Music Awards

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This June is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ronald Emrit v. Independent Music Awards" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 547.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/547
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4799

___________

RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

Appellant

v.

INDEPENDENT MUSIC AWARDS, IMA; SONICBIDS, INC.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-06751)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 27, 2015

Before: AMBRO, VANASKIE and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 3, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Ronald Satish Emrit, a citizen of Nevada, sued defendants IMA and Sonicbids, 

Inc. for breach of contract, negligence, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

distress, fraud, and tortious interference with business relations or contracts. Emrit 

alleges that he paid $160.00 to have seven music videos entered in the Independent 

Music Awards contest and that he “never heard back from” the defendants or their 

representatives after he submitted his videos. Emrit claims that the defendants never 

watched or judged his videos and he seeks monetary damages of $250,000 and an 

injunction mandating that the defendants accept an unlimited number of contest 

submissions from him free of charge.1 The District Court granted Emrit’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Emrit appealed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree with the District 

Court’s assessment that it lacked jurisdiction2 because the facts related to Emrit’s claims 

for damages do not support a finding that the amount in controversy meets the 

requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1332. “The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of 

showing that at all stages of the litigation the case is properly before the federal court.” 

 

1 On appeal, Emrit also requests specific performance or injunctive relief in the form of a 

commercial recording contract with Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, or 

Sony BMG to produce the seven music videos he submitted to the contest. We will not 

consider Emrit’s arguments related to that request for relief because they were not raised 

below. See Bell Atl.-Penn., Inc. v. Penn. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 273 F.3d 337, 344 n.3 (3d 

Cir. 2001)(“Our general practice is not to address legal issues not raised below, absent 

exceptional circumstances.”).

2

“[O]ur review of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary.” FrettSmith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 2008).
3

Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). 

“[E]stimations of the amounts recoverable must be realistic. The inquiry should be 

objective and not based on fanciful, ‘pie-in-the-sky,’ or simply wishful amounts, because 

otherwise the policy to limit diversity jurisdiction will be frustrated.” Id. at 403. Emrit 

claims that he paid $160 to enter the contest. His claim that his damages exceed the 

amount in controversy requirement are not supported by any legally cognizable 

calculation of damages. 

Even if the District Court had jurisdiction, we agree that Emrit failed to state a 

claim on which relief could be granted. Our review of the District Court’s dismissal for 

failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 

F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The standard under that section is the same as under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Tourscher 

v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)(applying 12(b)(6) standard to § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 

requires a “showing” of entitlement to relief and courts “must look beyond conclusory 

statements and determine whether the complaint's well-pled factual allegations, taken as 

true, are enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Renfro v. Unisys 

Corp., 671 F.3d 314, 320 (3d Cir. 2011)(quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare recitals 
4

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 

suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Emrit pleaded that he paid entry fees and submitted his videos to the competition. 

He also pleaded generally that he communicated with employees at the company about 

his submission of the videos. He alleges that he “firmly believes” that his videos were 

not reviewed and that the defendants “take advantage” of the desire of aspiring artists to 

“make it big” in the music business. The remainder of his complaint is a threadbare 

recital of the elements of his causes of action followed by conclusory statements that 

defendants are liable under each cause of action. Emrit failed to state a claim on which 

relief could be granted.3 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

 

3 The District Court did not offer Emrit an opportunity to amend the complaint. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). However, Emrit has 

waived the issue. Even if he had not, it is clear from Emrit’s filings that allowing him to 

amend his complaint would have been futile.