## Facts

- Mary Bucksar was at property owned by Charles A. Mayo III, doing business as The Cape Codder Guest House.
- Bucksar fell from a landing on the property and claimed she was seriously injured.
- Bucksar alleged the landing was dangerously small, lacked a railing, and violated applicable building codes.
- Bucksar also alleged Mayo failed to maintain the premises and failed to warn about the landing’s condition.
- Bucksar claimed injuries including a fracture, torn tendons, and a bulging spinal disc, along with ongoing pain and suffering and permanent bodily impairment.
- Bucksar sought $150,000 in damages, consisting of medical expenses, lost wages, and non-economic damages.
- Bucksar stated her medical expenses exceeded $13,300 and her lost wages exceeded $9,000, attributing the remainder primarily to pain and suffering.
- Mayo moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Bucksar did not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
- Bucksar opposed the motion and maintained her damages allegations were made in good faith.

## Issues

1. Whether the case satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction when the plaintiff sought $150,000 based on documented medical bills and wage loss plus claimed pain, suffering, and permanent impairment.
2. Whether the defendant showed to a legal certainty that the plaintiff could not recover more than the jurisdictional minimum, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court denied Mayo’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held Mayo did not show, to a legal certainty, that Bucksar could not recover more than the jurisdictional minimum.

## Legal Principles

- In a diversity case, the plaintiff’s good-faith demand controls the amount in controversy.
- Dismissal for failure to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement is proper only when it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount.
- The party challenging diversity jurisdiction bears the burden to show, to a legal certainty, that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional threshold.
- In assessing the amount in controversy, the court may consider the nature of the alleged injuries and the kinds of damages claimed, including non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and permanent impairment.

## Conclusion

Because Bucksar alleged significant physical injuries and sought $150,000 including non-economic damages tied to ongoing pain and claimed permanent impairment, Mayo failed to establish to a legal certainty that recovery over the jurisdictional minimum was impossible; therefore, the court kept the case under diversity jurisdiction and denied dismissal.


Bucksar v. Mayo, 2011 WL 13254244 (2011)