Rhee-Karn v. Lask
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:15-cv-09946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rhee-Karn v. Lask, Judge Lehrburger denied permission to challenge diversity jurisdiction, finding the proposed motion frivolous.
The ruling affected Defendant Susan Chana Lask’s request to challenge diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff Margaret Rhee-Karn’s case by leaving that proposed challenge denied.
What happened
In Rhee-Karn v. Lask, the defendant sought permission to argue that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff allegedly had no good-faith basis in 2015 to claim more than $75,000. The opinion states that the complaint initially claimed $315,000 in damages.
The court rejected that request. It explained that later narrowing of the claims through summary judgment did not show that the original damages allegation was made in bad faith. The court therefore denied the defendant’s request.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued the order on April 25, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it addressed only the proposed jurisdictional challenge.
The detailed version
- Rhee-Karn v. Lask · No. 1:15-cv-09946
- Robert Lehrburger
- Apr. 25, 2023
Issue
Defendant Susan Chana Lask sought permission to file a motion arguing that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction. The proposed argument was that, when Plaintiff Margaret Rhee-Karn filed her complaint in 2015, she did not have a good-faith basis to claim more than $75,000 in damages.
Court’s reasoning
The court called the proposed motion frivolous. It noted that an earlier decision by Judge Preska had recognized that the complaint initially claimed $315,000 in damages. The fact that summary judgment later reduced the claims and the potential recovery did not mean that the original amount allegation was made in bad faith.
The court also relied on the rule that the amount in controversy is ordinarily evaluated from the face of the complaint. Later events, including a recovery below the jurisdictional threshold or a defense reducing the potential recovery, generally do not establish bad faith or eliminate jurisdiction. The court stated that overcoming the complaint’s stated amount requires showing with legal certainty that the amount recoverable could not meet the jurisdictional threshold.
Disposition
The court denied Defendant’s request for permission to file the proposed jurisdictional motion. The order addressed the request to challenge jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.