From the introductory statement:
In its tentative ruling on Mr. Frey’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint, this Court sua sponte questioned whether it had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff Nadia Naffe’s (“Plaintiff”) claims. (Tentative Ruling at 3 – 5, 11.) The Court indicated that (1) Plaintiff’s state law causes of action predominate over her single federal cause of action, such that the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) even if Plaintiff’s sole federal claim survives;
(2) if Plaintiff’s federal claim does not survive, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); and (3) there appeared to be a question of whether Plaintiff’s allegations suffice to establish the $75,000 in damages necessary to sustain diversity jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1332(a).
Nothing that Plaintiff has added in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) should change the Court’s analysis. The state law claims still predominate over Plaintiff’s sole frivolous federal claim. Moreover, though Plaintiff has “supplemented” her allegations with conclusory and cumulative assertions that she has suffered more than $75,000 in damages, both the allegations in the FAC and evidence supplied in this motion demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the existence of damages to meet the jurisdictional threshold. The Court should therefore dismiss the state causes of action – the Second through Seventh Causes of Action – for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to the extent they survive Mr. Frey’s Renewed Motion to Strike.