Court Opinion

ID: 2963493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:51.524382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:07.809201
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          Jun 30, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                      

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1475

                                     ROY A. DAY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               KENZO NAKAMURA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Roy A. Davis, pro se, on motion for summary reversal.
            ____________
            Marshall  D. Stein and  Cherwin &  Glickman on  motion for summary
            __________________      ___________________
        affirmance and memorandum in support  of motion for summary affirmance
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Plaintiff-appellant,  Roy  A.  Day,
                      ___________

            appeals pro  se from  the district court's  dismissal of  his
                    ___  __

            complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

            Fed. R. Civ. P.  12(b)(1).  Appellees have moved  for summary

            affirmance.    Day  has  moved  for  summary  reversal.    We

            summarily affirm the dismissal of this complaint.

                              I.  Diversity Jurisdiction
                                  ______________________

                      "Once challenged,  .  . .  , the  party seeking  to

            invoke   jurisdiction  has  the   burden  of   alleging  with

            sufficient particularity the facts  indicating that it is not

            a legal  certainty  that the  claim  involves less  than  the

            jurisdictional  amount.   A  party may  meet  this burden  by

            amending   the  pleadings   or  by   submitting  affidavits."

            Department of Recreation & Sports  v. World Boxing Ass'n, 942
            _________________________________     __________________

            F.2d 84, 88 (1st Cir. 1991).

                      Day  has failed  to meet  his burden.   He  did not

            amend  the  pleadings or  submit  affidavits  in response  to

            appellees' motion  to dismiss.  Although  the complaint seeks

            $180,000 in compensatory damages,  the entire purchase  price

            of  the computer  was only  $2,385.   Therefore, even  if the

            inability to purchase additional memory rendered the computer

            completely  useless  (which  Day  admits  it  did  not),  the

            compensatory  damages  would  not  approach  $50,000.     The

            complaint does not allege lost profits or other consequential

            business losses.

                                         -2-

                      Whether  Massachusetts or  Florida law  controls (a

            matter about which the  parties disagree), damages for mental

            pain and  suffering and punitive damages  are not recoverable

            on these facts.   Therefore,  Day has failed  to plead  facts

            indicating that it is  not a legal certainty that  his claims

            involve less than $50,000.

                          II.  Federal Question Jurisdiction
                               _____________________________

                      Defendant's motion to dismiss was  pursuant to both

            Fed.  R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)  and 12(b)(6).   The district court

            dismissed the complaint pursuant to 12(b)(1).   Day argues on

            appeal  that the  adequacy  of the  jurisdictional amount  is

            "moot"  because the  complaint arises  under the  Sherman and

            Clayton Acts  and that, therefore, there  is federal question

            jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   1331.  We may affirm the

            district  court's  12(b)(1)  dismissal on  any  independently

            sufficient ground,  including failure  to state a  claim. See
                                                                      ___

            Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 7 n.3 (1st Cir. 1993).
            _________    ____

                      The  basis of  Day's claims  under the  Sherman and

            Clayton  Acts is  that  defendants engaged  in the  following

            "monopolistic practices": 

                      deny[ing]  .  .  .   citizens  additional
                      `random accessory memory'  . . .  for NEC
                      computers at a reasonable and competitive
                      purchase price, solely for the purpose to
                      force, coerce and intimidate the citizens
                      to purchase a `new NEC computer' by using
                                     ________________
                      correspondence  which   is  replete  with
                      `falsehoods,   fraud,  misrepresentations
                      and half-truths,'. . . .

                                         -3-

            As the appellees point out in their Opposition to Appellant's

            Motion for Summary Reversal, the claim is illogical:  "[W]ith

            such a range of  alternative[] [lap top computers] available,

            appellant's  dissatisfaction with  the cost of  enhancing the

            memory  on his NEC machine  would result in  his purchasing a

            competitor's product, rather than being forced to buy another

            product from NEC."  

                      The complaint  alleges  that NEC  sells  additional

            memory  for  the  286V  at  unreasonable  and  noncompetitive

            prices.    It also  alleges, however,  that  NEC --  far from

            having a monopoly  in the  supply of additional  RAM for  the

            286V -- does not have the  RAM for sale at all.  The  alleged

            "monopolistic practices" could not  even conceivably have the

            effect  of restraining  competition or  creating a  monopoly.

            The complaint's vague  and contradictory allegations fail  to

            state a claim under the federal antitrust laws.

                      Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of this

            complaint is affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.  Appellees' request
                         ________   ___

            for an injunction restricting Day's filings with the district

            court  is denied.    Appellees may  file  a motion  with  the
                      ______

            district court  seeking an injunction from  future filings if

            the need arises.

                                         -4-