United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. HICKEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 15.
Plaintiffs have responded to the motion. ECF No. 17. The
matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration. For the
reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is granted.
26, 2013, Plaintiffs purchased a new 2014 Forest River Sierra
5th Wheel ("camper") from Mayflower RV in Malvern,
Arkansas. The purchase price of the camper was $57, 505.00.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant issued a limited written
warranty to repair or replace parts defective in material and
November 2013, after a heavy rain, Plaintiffs noticed a leak
in the camper. In December 2013, Plaintiffs returned the
camper to Mayflower RV for repairs. After the camper was
returned to Plaintiffs, the camper flooded the next time it
rained. In June 2014, Mayflower RV kept the camper for over
one month to repair the leak. According to Plaintiffs, the
leak has not been properly repaired. Also, Plaintiffs have
experienced other problems with the camper. On January 9,
2015, Plaintiffs demanded either the return of all money paid
to Defendant for the camper or the replacement of the
defective camper with a new one. Defendant refused the
2015, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court. ECF No.
1. Counts one through four allege breach of written warranty,
breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness,
all pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 2301, et seq. Count five alleges a negligence
claim brought pursuant to state law. For each of the five
counts, Plaintiffs’ complaint demands reimbursement for
diminution in value of the camper, incurred and/or needed
costs of repair, out-of-pocket expenses, and travel expenses
to and from the repair facilities; loss of use damages;
attorney’s fees; expert fees; court costs; any
equitable relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled; and all
other relief deemed just and appropriate by the Court. The
complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought.
motion to dismiss, Defendant alleges that the Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims in
Plaintiffs’ complaint. Rule 12(b)(1) allows the Court
to dismiss claims over which it lacks proper subject-matter
jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Two types of
subject-matter jurisdiction challenges exist under Rule
12(b)(1): "facial attacks" and "factual
attacks." Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson,
Mo., 793 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2015). "In a
facial attack, ‘the court merely [needs] to look and
see if plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject
matter jurisdiction.’" Id. at 914-15
(quoting Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d
507, 511 (8th Cir. 1980))." "[I]n a factual attack,
‘the existence of subject matter jurisdiction [is
challenged] in fact, irrespective of the
pleadings.’" Id. (quoting
Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 511). "If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."
subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a claim arises under
federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
Magnuson-Moss Act allows a plaintiff to sue in federal court
for breach of warranty, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), provided
that certain jurisdictional thresholds are met. Claims under
the Magnuson-Moss Act may only be brought in federal court if
the amount in controversy reaches "the sum or value of
$50, 000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the
basis of all claims to be determined in this suit[.]" 15
U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(B).
8(a) states that a pleading must contain a "short and
plaint statement of the grounds for the Court’s
jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiffs attempt to
invoke federal question jurisdiction through the
Magnuson-Moss Act by stating in their complaint that the
Court "has subject-matter jurisdiction over this cause
of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 2310(d)." ECF No.
1, p. 2. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege a specific amount
of damages in the complaint. Plaintiffs also do not generally
allege that the amount in controversy is equal to or greater
than $50, 000.00, the jurisdictional threshold imposed by the
Magnuson-Moss Act. Therefore, the complaint, on its face,
fails to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy
Plaintiffs’ had sufficiently alleged a basis of
subject-matter jurisdiction, it appears that the Court would
still lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’
claims. The formula for calculating damages in a
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act case is this: the price of a
replacement vehicle, minus both the present value of the
allegedly defective vehicle and the value that the plaintiff
received from the use of the allegedly defective vehicle.
Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402, 406
(7th Cir. 2004); Curry v. Pleasurecraft Marine Engine
Co., 950 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1059-60 (W.D. Mo. 2013). In the
present case, neither party offers a dollar amount as to the
value Plaintiffs received from the use of the defective
camper, the camper’s present value, or the price of a
replacement vehicle. Plaintiffs, however, estimate the
diminution of value damages to be $19, 400. ECF No. 15-1, p.
argue that their damages are in excess of the required
threshold because they are seeking diminution of value
damages ($19, 400.00) plus the costs of needed repair,
out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use of the camper, and travel
expenses to and from the repair facilities. Plaintiffs,
however, do not cite to any warranty case in Arkansas that
would allow them to seek a double recovery for diminution
damages while also seeking the cost of repairing the alleged
defects that purportedly caused the claimed diminution in
value. Further, Plaintiff has not attempted to quantify the
potential damages for out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use of
the camper, and travel expenses. Thus, Plaintiffs’
claims for these damages are too vague and speculative to
rely on when determining the amount in
controversy. See Curry, 950 F.Supp.2d at 1060.
Plaintiff admits that attorney’s fees, expert fees, and
court costs are not calculated in the amount in controversy.
Accordingly, assuming diminution in value damages of $19,
400.00, Plaintiff would not be able to show that the amount
in controversy is at least $50, 000.00.
the complaint fails to satisfy the jurisdictional amount in
controversy requirement, the Court concludes that
subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist in this case.
Without subject-matter jurisdiction, there can be no
supplemental jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs’
negligence claim pursuant to state law. Accordingly,