Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

189 F. Supp. 314

Salkoff v. Dissik

U.S. District Court

Decided December 27, 1960

U.S. District Court · decided 1960-12-27

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1979

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relies on Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKean · Sicilia v. Tassell · Hinchliffe v. Carr

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1960-12-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

EGAN, District Judge.

¶1Defendants (husband and wife) move to dismiss plaintiffs’ (husband and wife) diversity tort action for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there is no possibility that a verdict in excess of $10,000 could be sustained. Defendants aver that plaintiffs’ injuries were minimal and that their medical expenses totaled $37.

¶2On the other hand, plaintiffs allege-that an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed the-wife plaintiff’s injuries as acute lumbo-sacral strain, sciatic syndrome and a possible protruded disc syndrome which may require surgery and a long hospital stay.

¶3We believe it to be well settled that in a diversity case, where the plaintiff alleges the damages to be in excess of the jurisdictional amount, the Court will not dismiss the complaint unless there is a legal certainty that the damages will not reach or approximate this amount. See Norwood Lumber Corp. v. McKean, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 753; Sicilia v. Tassell, D.C.E.D.Pa.1958, 163 F.Supp. 371; Hinchliffe v. Carr, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1958, 22 F.R.D. 187.

¶4Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be and hereby is denied.

¶5It is so ordered.

/189/fsupp/314 · .json · Public domain