UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sanjeev Lath

v. Civil No. 17-cv-75-JL Opinion No.

Cynthia Schadler Camp & Michael Camp

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In one of several actions he has pending in federal court,1

pro se plaintiff Sanjeev Lath alleges that Cynthia and Michael

Camp committed common-law invasion of privacy and violated New

Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated § 570-A:11 by videotaping

him without his permission on two occasions. As both claims

arise under state law, this court only has subject-matter

jurisdiction to the extent permitted by

. That

statute bestows federal district courts with diversity

jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states

when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.

1 See Lath v. Vallee, No. 16-cv-463-LM (D.N.H. filed Oct. 18, 2016); Lath v. Manchester Police Department, No. 16-cv-534-LM (D.N.H. filed Dec. 15, 2016); Lath v. PennyMac Loan Services, No. 1:18-cv-10741-LTS (D. Mass. filed May 2, 2018); Lath v. Defense Contract Management Agency, No. 18-cv-611-LM (D.N.H. filed July 6, 2018); Lath v. Mattis, No. 18-cv-686-JL (D.N.H. filed Aug. 3, 2018); Lath v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, No. 18-cv-928-PB (D.N.H. Filed Oct. 10, 2018). § 1332(a)(1). The court has challenged whether the amount in

controversy in this case exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.

Both parties briefed this issue, and the court heard oral

argument. Concluding that Lath has not demonstrated that his

claims meet this jurisdictional amount, the court dismissed this

case after the hearing for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

This order sets forth the bases for that dismissal in greater

detail. See, e.g., United States v. Joubert,

, 55 n.1 (D.N.H. 2014), aff'd,

(1st Cir. 2015)

(citing In re Mosley,

, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007))

(noting a district court's authority to later reduce its prior

oral findings and rulings to writing).

Applicable legal standard

As noted, a federal district court only has diversity

jurisdiction over an action when two statutory prerequisites are

met: the plaintiff and the defendants must be citizens of

different states and the amount in controversy must exceed

$75,000. See

(a)(1). The party seeking to

invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of demonstrating

that both requirements are met. Spielman v. Genzyme Corp.,

(1st Cir. 2001). Although Lath alleges that the

events underlying his claims all occurred at an apartment

complex in New Hampshire, he contends (and the Camps do not

2 dispute) that he resides in New Hampshire and they in Maine.

Thus, the court limits its inquiry to whether the amount in

controversy meets the jurisdictional minimum.

When a plaintiff's complaint includes an ad damnum clause,

that sum controls "if the claim is apparently made in good

faith." Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC,

(1st

Cir. 2012) (brackets and citations omitted). "Good faith is

measured objectively; the question is whether to anyone familiar

with the applicable law this claim could objectively have been

viewed as worth more than the jurisdictional minimum."

(brackets, ellipsis, internal quotation marks, and citations

omitted). "It must appear to a legal certainty that a claim is

really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify

dismissal."

While federal courts "have a responsibility to police the

borders of federal jurisdiction," this determination "should be

done quickly, without extensive fact-finding inquiry."

Spielman,

(citations omitted). "A plaintiff's

general allegation of damages that meet the amount requirement

suffices unless questioned by the opposing party or the court."

Abdel-Aleem,

(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Once challenged, however, "the party seeking

to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with

sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal

3 certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional

amount."

(internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

Background

A. Procedural history

Lath originally brought this action in state court,

alleging state-law claims against the City of Manchester.2 With

the City's assent, Lath amended his complaint to include a

federal claim against the City under

The City

then removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C § 1446.4

Following removal, Lath filed an amended complaint in which

he for the first time named the Camps as defendants.5 Judge

Johnstone reviewed that complaint and recommended that it be

dismissed without prejudice because Lath filed it without first

seeking leave from the court as required by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).6 The court approved that

recommendation and dismissed the amended complaint without

2 See doc. no. 1-1 at 2-3. 3 See id. at 4-21. 4 Doc. no. 1. 5 Doc. no. 4. 6 May 9, 2018 Report & Recommendation (doc. no. 8) at 3-4.

4 prejudice.7 Lath then moved for leave to amend his complaint to

add numerous defendants, including the Camps.8

The court referred that motion to Judge Johnstone, who

recommended that it be denied as to all defendants other than

the City and the Camps.9 As to the City, Judge Johnstone

recommended that Lath be allowed to proceed on a § 1983 claim

for a Fourth Amendment violation and state-law claims for

trespass and failure to preserve a 911 recording.10 She further

recommended that Lath be allowed to amend his complaint to

allege claims against the Camps for common-law invasion of

privacy and violations of New Hampshire Revised Statutes § 570-

A:11, the New Hampshire wiretapping statute.11 The court

approved those recommendations in full,12 thereby making Lath's

First Amended Complaint the operative pleading in this case.13

7 June 1, 2018 Order (doc. no. 15). 8 Doc. no. 16. 9 See Oct. 4, 2017 Report & Recommendation (doc. no. 30) at 20- 21. 10 See id. 11 See id. at 21. 12 Nov. 7, 2017 Order (doc. no. 31). 13 See First Amend. Compl. (doc. no. 16-1).

5 The Camps and the City both timely moved to dismiss.14 The

court dismissed Lath's § 1983 claim against the City, concluding

that Lath had not alleged a municipal policy or custom as

required by Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,

(1978).15 The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over

Lath's attendant state-law claims against the City.16 In

deference to Lath's pro se status, however, the court refrained

from dismissing Lath's claims against the Camps, concluding that

Lath had minimally alleged common-law invasion of privacy and

violations of the wiretapping statute and that, when taken at

face value, his complaint contained facts establishing diversity

jurisdiction over those claims under § 1332(a).17 The court

nevertheless noted its skepticism that Lath could recover more

than $75,000 against the Camps, and accordingly directed Lath to

show cause that this jurisdictional minimum was met.18

Lath filed several documents in response to the show-cause

order. He initially addressed this issue in his motion to

14 See doc. no. 46 (Camps); doc. no. 48 (City). 15 May 15, 2018 Order (doc. no. 78) at 5-8. 16 Id. at 8. 17 Id. at 9; May 15, 2018 Order (doc. no. 77) at 4-8. 18 May 15, 2018 Order (doc. no. 78) at 10-12.

6 reconsider the order to dismiss the City.19 Though the court

denied that motion, it indicated that it would consider Lath's

amount-in-controversy arguments when resolving whether it had

subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims.20 Lath also filed a

response to the show-cause order,21 an affidavit in further

support of diversity jurisdiction,22 and a reply memorandum.23

The Camps filed a single response to the show-cause order.24

The court scheduled a hearing for August 30, 2018. Two

weeks before that hearing, Lath moved to appear by telephone,

indicating that he lived in Nashua without available

transportation to Concord.25 The court granted that motion in

part and, as a convenience to Lath, held the hearing at the

Hillsborough County Superior Court in Nashua.26 Both Lath and

the Camps' counsel presented arguments at the hearing.

19 Doc. no. 84 at 7-10. 20 Aug. 1, 2018 Endorsed Order. 21 Doc. no. 90. 22 Doc. no. 94. 23 Doc. no. 95. 24 Doc. no. 91. 25 Doc. no. 98. 26 See Aug. 23, 2018 Endorsed Order.

7 B. Allegations against the Camps

Lath's allegations against the Camps can be summarized

succinctly. Lath contends that on November 22, 2015, as he

entered his residence with his friend Barbara Belware, he got

into an altercation with the Camps after Cynthia Camp falsely

reported to the Manchester Police Department that Lath had

kicked a door.27 Lath contends that during that altercation,

Michael Camp recorded Lath and Belware on his cell phone.28 Lath

alleges that the Camps again recorded him on their cell phones

on November 30, 2015, as Lath was returning from work and

entering his unit.29 Lath alleges that he was on the phone with

his psychiatrist at the time and that the Camps continued to

record him after he asked them to stop.30 He alleges that

Cynthia Camp later admitted to making the recordings during a

hearing in state court.31

Lath alleges, without elaboration, that the Camps used the

contents of the recordings to belittle him, spread rumors about

27 First Amend. Compl. (doc. no. 16-1) ¶¶ 13-14 28 Id. ¶ 14. 29 Id. ¶ 22. 30 Id. ¶¶ 22, 65. 31 Id. ¶ 23.

8 him, and otherwise assassinate his character.32 He further

contends, again in summary fashion, that he suffered "shame,

anguish, despair, mental shock, humiliation, feelings of being

violated, emotional distress, hurt feelings, [and disturbance

of] peace of mind . . . in an amount in excess of the

jurisdiction limits of this Court."33 He seeks to recover

equitable, incidental, compensatory, enhanced compensatory, and

punitive damages from the Camps.34 He specifically requests $2

million in damages for each cause of action.35

Analysis

When, as here, the court challenges whether the amount in

controversy is met, "the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction

has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts

indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim

involves less than the jurisdictional amount." Abdel-Aleem,

. There are three general circumstances that

clearly meet the legal certainty standard:

1) when the terms of a contract limit the plaintiff's possible recovery to less than the required jurisdictional amount; 2) when a specific rule of substantive law or measure of damages limits the amount of money recoverable

32 Id. ¶ 67. 33 Id. ¶ 73. 34 Id. ¶ 9. 35 Id. at 35.

9 by the plaintiff to less than the necessary number of dollars to satisfy the requirement; and 3) when independent facts show that the amount of damages claimed has been inflated by the plaintiff merely to secure federal court jurisdiction.

14AA Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3713 (4th ed. 2018) (and cases

cited therein). As Lath uses this framing device in his

briefing, the court will do the same. And because the first two

circumstances plainly do not apply here, the court limits its

inquiry to the third.

As an initial matter, Lath argues that he has satisfied the

amount-in-controversy requirement because he initially filed

this case in superior court and that court has a significantly

lower jurisdictional threshold. See

; 502-A:14. This argument is a nonstarter. "Federal

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that

power authorized by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. Minton,

(2013) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). In the present context, Congress has only bestowed

federal district courts with subject-matter jurisdiction when

both requirements of

(a) are met. The superior

court's jurisdictional minimum is therefore irrelevant to the

court's inquiry.

Seemingly aware of this, Lath's remaining arguments focus

on the more-than-$75,000 jurisdictional minimum. First, he

10 contends that he has met this minimum because (1) he requested

$475,000 in damages in his original state-court complaint

against the City, (2) he requested $2 million per claim in his

amended complaint filed in this court, and (3) he subsequently

sent the Camps a $10 million settlement demand. As this court

has previously explained to Lath, however,36 an ad damnum clause

in a complaint is insufficient on its own to satisfy the amount-

in-controversy requirement when the claimed damages "are

questioned by the opposing party or the court." Abdel-Aleem,

(citations omitted). The court may challenge

such demands when they do not appear to be made in objective

good faith.

. Similarly, while a settlement demand is

"relevant evidence of the amount in controversy if it appears to

reflect a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's claim," even

then it is not dispositive. Ramchandra v. Amtrak Nat. R.R.

Corp.,

(D. Mass. 2004) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cohn D.V.M. v. Petsmart, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002)); see also Doughty v. Hyster

New England, Inc.,

(D. Me. 2004) ("[A]

settlement demand is not the sole determinative factor to

36See Aug. 1, 2018 Endorsed Order; May 15, 2018 Order (doc. no. 78) at 10.

11 consider when assessing the jurisdictional amount in

controversy.").

The court challenged the amount in controversy in this case

in part because it did not believe, based on the allegations in

Lath's First Amended Complaint, that the ad damnum clauses

reflected reasonable or good faith estimates of the value of

Lath's remaining claims. In response, Lath has failed to

explain how he could recover anywhere near the amounts requested

in those clauses, let alone an award approaching his $10 million

settlement demand. The court therefore concludes that the ad

damnum clauses and the settlement demand do not meet Lath's

burden with respect to the amount in controversy. Lath must

accordingly point to facts to support his damages claim. See

Abdel-Aleem,

-42

Lath attempts to do so by arguing that he is entitled to

actual and punitive damages in an amount exceeding $75,000.

While Lath could receive both types of damages if he prevailed

on his claims, see, e.g.,

-A:11, it is

difficult to conceive, based on his factual allegations, how any

such award could ever exceed the jurisdictional threshold. As

the court explained at the hearing, those allegations, though

minimally sufficient to survive a Rule 12 motion, do not reflect

the sort of conduct that would support a significant actual

damages award, let alone a jury instruction for punitive

12 damages. Lath's briefing in response to the show-cause order is

similarly silent as to how he was damaged by the Camps.37 Thus,

Lath's written filings do not satisfy his burden with respect to

the amount in controversy.

Cognizant of Lath's pro se status, the court held a hearing

to give Lath an additional opportunity to explain how the Camps'

conduct harmed him. He was unable to do so. For instance,

while Lath contended that he no longer felt safe speaking on the

phone in his home, he conceded that he was in the common area at

his condominium when the Camps recorded him. As the court

explained at the hearing, this undermines any causal connection

between the Camps' actions and the alleged harm.38 Similarly,

Lath contended that he suffered "emotional damages" because he

was no longer able to live in his house, but conceded that this

was due to a restraining order unrelated to the alleged

recordings.39 When the court pressed Lath on how the Camps

37In his briefing, Lath references other events not previously pleaded in this case. Lath has not sought leave to amend his complaint to allege these events, and the court would not be inclined to permit an amendment at this juncture, as Lath has already amended his complaint multiple times and discovery closed in May, several months before Lath filed his briefing. Thus, as discussed at the hearing, the court does not consider these references as part of its present analysis. See Hearing Transcript (hereinafter "Tr.") at 15. 38 Tr. at 16-17. 39

at 30-32

13 belittled him, spread rumors about him, or assassinated his

character, he was unable to provide any cogent explanation. He

was likewise unable to articulate any specific instances of

shame, anguish, despair, mental shock, humiliation, feelings of

being violated, emotional distress, hurt feelings, or

disturbance of peace of mind attributable to the Camps.

Instead, Lath admitted several times on the record that

this case was "never about damages."40 While the court

appreciates Lath's honesty, this admission, when coupled with

Lath's inability to explain any harm caused by the Camps'

actions, is dispositive. In short, the court is convinced,

based on this admission and all the reasons stated above, that

it is a legal certainty that the amount-in-controversy

requirement is not met in this case. This court therefore does

not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under

. As there is no other basis for federal

jurisdiction, Lath's claims against the Camps must be dismissed.

Conclusion

"[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and

therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions

40Id. at 45. Lath later conceded that "[n]one of [his] lawsuits that are pending have litigated so far was ever about monetary damages." Id. at 47 (none of his lawsuits are about damages).

14 that the parties either overlook or elect not to press."

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

,

(2011). Not persuaded Lath's damages requests

in this case were made in good faith, the court challenged

whether the amount in controversy exceeded the threshold for

diversity jurisdiction. It was Lath's burden to "alleg[e] with

sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal

certainty that [his] claim[s] involve[] less than the

jurisdictional amount." Abdel-Aleem,

. He was

unable to do so, ultimately conceding that this case was not

about damages in the first place. The court accordingly

concludes that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not met

and DISMISSES Lath's claims for want of subject-matter

jurisdiction.

The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and

close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge

Dated: October 16, 2018

cc: Sanjeev Lath, pro se Sabin Maxwell, Esq.

15