Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hupp v. Kuehn

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 8, 2014

HUPP
v.
KUEHN ET AL

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.

Proceedings: MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (dkt. 19, filed October 24, 2014).

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul Hupp filed this action against defendants Rhonda Kuehn, Helping Orphaned Hounds ("HOH"), and Roes 1-10 on June 16, 2014. Dkt. 1. On September 10, 2014, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, and granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") on October 10, 2014, adding defendant Bettis Lives and asserting claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) "declaratory injunctive" relief, and (5) defamation. Dkt. 18. Plaintiff asserts claims one, two, and three against Keuhn and HOH; claim four against Keuhn, HOH, and Lives; and claim five against Keuhn and Lives. Id . Plaintiff seeks both general and punitive damages. Id.

This suit arises from a dispute regarding the adoption of a dog named Piglet. In brief, plaintiff alleges that he met and bonded with Piglet at an animal shelter in Wildomar, California in December 2013. Compl. ¶ 14. After communicating with indivudals on a Facebook networking page concerned with rescuing dogs, plaintiff spoke with representatives of HOH, which is based Arizona. Id . ¶¶ 15-16. Subsequently, plaintiff agreed to transport Piglet from the Wildomar shelter to HOH in Arizona, where HOH would provide Piglet with veterinary services and attempt to find a home for Piglet, in exchange for $100 in gas costs. Id . ¶¶ 16-18. However, before transporting Piglet to HOH, plaintiff told HOH that he hoped to adopt Piglet himself. Id . ¶¶ 19-20. Plaintiff alleges that HOH stated that Piglet still had to be transported to Arizona for pre-arranged veterinary services, but promised plaintiff that he would have a right of first refusal to adopt Piglet once she was healthy. Id . ¶ 20. Plaintiff subsequently transported Piglet to Blythe, California, where he handed Piglet off to an HOH representative. Id . ¶ 21.

According to plaintiff, HOH and Keuhn reneged on their promise to give plaintiff a right of first refusal, instead allowing another individual to adopt Piglet. Id . ¶¶ 22-28. Further, plaintiff alleges that HOH and Keuhn never intended to allow plaintiff to adopt Piglet, as evidenced by an announcement on HOH's Facebook page seeking to adopt Piglet locally in Arizona, but nonetheless induced plaintiff to perform "the required actions under the contract." Id . ¶¶ 63-64. When plaintiff learned that Piglet had been adopted by another individual, he sent Keuhn and HOH a letter demanding that they comply with the terms of the alleged contract. Id . ¶¶ 29-30. Neither HOH nor Keuhn responded to plaintiff's letter, and plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit. Id . ¶¶ 30-31.

After being served with the complaint in July 2014, Keuhn allegedly published defamatory statements about plaintiff on her public Facebook page, including calling plaintiff a "whacko" and an "asshole, " and stating that her attorney had called plaintiff a "kook." Id . ¶ 32. Multiple Facebook users allegedly responded to Kuehn's publication with more "derogatory and negative" comments about plaintiff, and another individual republished-or in Facebook parlance, "shared"-Keuhn's entire post. Id . ¶¶ 33-34.

On August 13, 2014, plaintiff offered to settle the case for $5, 000 plus court costs and fees, as well as the "surrender" of Piglet. Id . ¶ 36. HOH and Keuhn did not respond to this settlement offer. Id . ¶ 37. Later that month, Keuhn again posted allegedly defamatory statements about plaintiff on her Facebook page, including, inter alia, calling plaintiff her "bitch, " and "a professional suer, " and stating that "it would be a cold day in hell before [plaintiff] EVER got a dog from HOH because he would fail our adoption requirements on many different levels!" Id . ¶ 37. As a result of Kuehn's Facebook postings, plaintiff alleges that one Bettis Lives-alleged solely to be a "Facebook account"-posted defamatory statements about plaintiff on its own public Facebook page, including allegedly accusing plaintiff of letting a dog die on his property due to carelessness. Id . ¶¶ 40-42.

On October 24, 2014, defendants Keuhn and HOH filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Dkt. 19. Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 19, 2014, dkt. 22, and defendants replied on November 24, 2014, dkt. 23.[1] The Court held a hearing on December 8, 2014. Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss an action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (1) raises the question of the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The objection presented by this motion is that the court has no authority to hear and decide the case. This defect may exist despite the formal sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. See T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 226 F.Supp. 337, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1964) (the formal allegations must yield to the substance of the claim when a motion is filed to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). When considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenging the substance of jurisdictional allegations, the Court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as declarations and testimony, to resolve any factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. See McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir.1988).

The burden of proof in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is on the party asserting jurisdiction. See Sopcak v. N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir.1995); Ass'n of Am. Med. Coll. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778-79 (9th Cir.2000). If jurisdiction is based on a federal question, the pleader must show that he has alleged a claim under federal law and that the claim is not frivolous. See 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1350, pp. 211, 231 (3d ed. 2004). On the other hand, if jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the pleader must show real and complete diversity, and also that his asserted claim exceeds the requisite jurisdictional amount of $75, 000. See id.

II. ANALYSIS

Although it is undisputed that the parties are completely diverse, defendants assert that diversity jurisdiction is lacking because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75, 000. Specifically, defendants assert that plaintiff's breach of contract and fraud claims "boil down to" a claim for reimbursement for the cost of gas incurred driving the dog to Blythe, plus the cost to adopt the dog. With regard to the defamation claims, defendants appear to assert that these claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.