Hecking v . NH COSH, et a l . 13-CV-366-SM 11/8/13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dirck Hecking, Plaintiff

v. Case N o . 13-cv-366-SM Opinion N o .

New Hampshire Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health and Brian Mitchell, Defendants

O R D E R

Prior to transfer of this case from the Southern District of

Indiana, defendants filed their first motion to dismiss (doc. n o .

5 ) on grounds that plaintiff’s claim does not meet the

jurisdictional amount in controversy. That motion was pending at

the time of transfer. See 8/12/13 Order, doc. n o . 2 6 .

Defendants chose not to renew the motion within 30 days of

transfer (see 8/14/13 Procedural Order in Transferred Case), but

instead filed a new motion to dismiss, doc. n o . 3 4 . Although in

their second motion to dismiss defendants do not argue that the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, it is

necessary, nevertheless, to address the issue. This court has an

“independent obligation to insure that [it] do[es] not exceed the

scope of [its] jurisdiction, and therefore [it] must raise and

decide jurisdictional questions that the parties . . . elect not

to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v . Shinseki, __ U.S. __, 131 S . C t . 1197, 1202 (2011). Notably, the parties fully briefed

the amount-in-controversy issue when they addressed defendants’

first motion to dismiss.

Having reviewed the complaint and the arguments, the court

finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff alleges that his case falls within

the diversity jurisdiction of this court, see

, but his complaint does not plausibly assert or even imply

that the amount in controversy does or could possibly exceed

$75,000. Although the complaint alleges generally that the

amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold, it does

not indicate, directly or by plausible inference, any connection

between defendants’ alleged online misrepresentations about New

Hampshire’s worker’s compensation claims process and some injury

to plaintiff — let alone one whose value might exceed $75,000.

The claims, therefore, lack “objective good faith,” in that no

one “familiar with the applicable law could . . . reasonably

. . . conclude[] that the claim [is] worth the jurisdictional

amount.” Esquilin-Mendoza v . Don King Prod., Inc.,

, 4

(1st Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, the case is dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

2 SO ORDERED.

S ___ ven J. McAuliff __ yfrte J - ^ J o -i- -, -i- ^ ^ r^ -; ,-, -i- e nited States District Judge

November 8 , 2013

cc: Dirck Hecking, pro se Shawn J. Sullivan, Esq

3