Wood v. Maguire Automotive, LLC

SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Julia Wood appeals from the September 26, 2011 memorandum-decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.) granting defendants’ motions to dismiss her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Pleading that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 creates “ ‘a rebuttable presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the actual amount in controversy.’ ” Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 347 F.3d 394, 397 (2d Cir.2003) (citation omitted). To overcome this presumption, the party challenging jurisdiction must demonstrate “‘to a legal certainty that the amount recoverable does not meet the jurisdictional threshold.” Id. (citation omitted). Wood alleges in her complaint that she exercised her right to revoke acceptance of the vehicle, and asserts several causes of action, including a claim for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Jurisdiction under Magnuson-Moss is concurrent with the state courts, but federal court jurisdiction is restricted to those suits that can satisfy two relevant elements (1) the amount in controversy of any individual claim must be at least $25; and (2) the overall amount in controversy must be at least $50,000, excluding interest and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3). Wood’s allegation in her complaint of $75,000 in controversy is conclusory and not entitled to a presumption of truth. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, *66 556 U.S. 662, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1987, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). And Wood’s argument that attorneys’ fees should count toward the amount in controversy requirement appears in only one sentence of her brief, making it inadequately argued and thus waived. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998). We have examined the remainder of appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED. Each side to bear its own costs.