From the Introduction:
This Court, acting sua sponte, raised the question whether Plaintiff Nadia Naffe’s original complaint was supported by diversity jurisdiction, suggesting that its allegations might not support damages over the jurisdictional threshold. (Tentative Ruling at 3 – 5.) In his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Defendant John Patrick Frey (“Mr. Frey”) demonstrated that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) does not in fact support a claim for damages that meets the $75,000 threshold.
Plaintiff’s meager Opposition shows that she did not take either the Court’s question or Mr. Frey’s Motion seriously. In support of the contention that her patchwork of imaginative claims (arising from merely being disagreed with in public)
is entitled to a federal forum, Plaintiff’s Opposition does not offer a single rebuttal to the legal authority cited by Mr. Frey. It does not even cite a single case or statute to support its own arguments. Instead of providing points and authorities, the Opposition relies entirely on sophistry, coupled with a two-page, seven-paragraph declaration by
Plaintiff which is vague, conclusory, and rife with hearsay. Her opposition fails utterly to carry Plaintiff’s legal and factual burden to prove damages above the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court should therefore dismiss the Second through Seventh Causes of Action to the extent they rely upon diversity jurisdiction.