Court Opinion

ID: 9447305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:31:20.607494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:58.831639
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring).
I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion to the extent that it reverses the judgment of dismissal of count two of plaintiff’s claim and remands the case. I am not in accord with some of the views expressed by the majority as a basis for supporting the reversal. Thus, I find it necessary to briefly state my views.
If for the purposes of analysis, count two is considered independently and without reference to count one, I believe the trial court’s dismissal of count two for want of jurisdiction is justified. The trial court, upon the basis of Missouri law, reached a permissible conclusion that no damages for mental suffering were recoverable as a matter of law in a breach of warranty action such as that presented by count two. The general rule as stated by the majority is that the jurisdictional amount is to be determined upon the allegations of the complaint. The general rule is fully stated in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845. The court in the case just cited, at page 289 of 303 U.S., at page 590 of 58 S.Ct., recognizes the following exception to the rule:
“But if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed, or if, from the proofs, the court is satis*238fied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.”
Such exception is also recognized in Bell v. Preferred Life Assur. Society, 320 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 5, 6, 88 L.Ed. 15, where the court states:
«* * * question remains whether it is apparent to a legal certainty from the complaint that he could not recover, in addition, sufficient punitive damages to make up the requisite $3,000.”
The court then holds that under applicable South Carolina law punitive damages are allowable in the situation presented.
In Parmelee v. Ackerman, 6 Cir., 252 F.2d 721, 722, a case factually similar to our present case in many respects, the court eliminated, in considering the jurisdictional amount, allegations for damages for embarrassment and mental suffering, which damages it found were not recoverable in a contract action in Ohio. The court states:
“And it is settled that, in ascertaining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes, ‘where the law gives the rule, the legal cause of action, and not the plaintiff’s demand, must be regarded.’ ”
In our present case upon the basis of applicable Missouri law I believe that the trial court was justified in determining from the face of count two that it is apparent to a legal certainty that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages claimed by reason of mental suffering. The elimination of the $7,500 claim for mental suffering brings the amount asked in count two below the jurisdictional amount of $10,000.
I believe that there is a valid legal basis which requires us to reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing count two. As stated by the majority opinion, count one is based upon fraud and count two is based upon breach of warranty. Both counts are based upon the same transaction. No question of the court’s jurisdiction to consider count one is raised. I agree with the statement in the majority opinion to the effect that count two is an alternate count based upon the same cause of action as count one, and that it was properly joined with count one. Under circumstances such as are presented here, the court acquired jurisdiction over the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff by reason of proper jurisdictional allegations found in count one. I believe the court also acquired jurisdiction over the alternate claim involving the same cause of action even though the alternative claim cannot be construed as claiming the requisite jurisdictional amount. Such view is supported by Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 53 S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148, and by American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Owensboro Milling Co., 6 Cir., 222 F.2d 109. See 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, 18.07 [1], as supplemented by page 139 of loose-leaf supplement.
The majority opinion properly states that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the trial court’s order striking certain allegations from count one. It is my view that such determination precludes any jurisdiction on our part to vacate the order striking a portion of count one. However, such order in the present case causes no substantial prejudice.
For the reasons hereinabove stated, I concur in the conclusion of the majority that the order dismissing count two of the complaint should be reversed and that the case should be remanded.