Court Opinion

ID: 2966010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:39.016199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:18.263408
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-2193

                        AMEER A. KHAAFID,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                   FLEET BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

          [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     
     Ameer A. Khaafid on brief pro se.

August 27, 1999

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record in
  this case.  We affirm the dismissal for lack of federal
  jurisdiction.
            A party invoking the diversity jurisdiction of a
  federal court has the burden of demonstrating the required
  jurisdictional amount.  Hardemon v. City of Boston, 144 F.3d
  24, 26 (1st Cir. 1998). While that burden is generally
  satisfied by simply alleging the amount in the complaint, id.,
  a complaint may be dismissed if the court finds that it
  "appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for
  less than the jurisdictional amount,"  Schlessinger v. Salimes,
  100 F.3d 519, 521 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting St. Paul Mercury
  Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938).  When
  challenged, the plaintiff "must show that the rules of law,
  applied to the facts of his case, could produce such an award." 
  Id.  
            Khaffid's complaint fails to meet this standard.  His
  alleged loss of income is simply too remote and speculative to
  have been legally caused by Fleet's allegedly unfair and
  deceptive practices.  See PDM Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v.
  Suffolk Const. Co. Inc., 35 Mass. App. Ct. 228, 237, 618 N.E.2d
  72 (no recovery for a defendant's unfair trade practice, absent
  a causal relationship between the alleged unfair acts and the
  claimed loss), review denied, 416 Mass. 1107, 443 N.E.2d 1364
  (1993).    
            Affirmed.