Hatchigian v. AAA Mid-Atl. Member Relations

DAVID HATCHIGIAN and JOAN RANDAZZO v. AAA MID-ATLANTIC MEMBER RELATIONS and AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4740

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

May 27, 2020

MEMORANDUM

Padova, J.

Pro se Plaintiffs David Hatchigian and Joan Randazzo commenced this action against Defendants AAA Mid-Atlantic Member Relations and American Automotive Association (collectively "AAA")¹ in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging that AAA denied Plaintiffs the benefits of a contract that Plaintiffs had entered into with AAA for emergency roadside assistance, and that AAA unilaterally terminated this policy without giving Plaintiffs notice. AAA Club Alliance, Inc. subsequently removed the action to this Court on October 11, 2019, asserting that this Court has diversity jurisdiction. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. For the reasons that follow, we grant the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Corrected Verified Complaint (the "Complaint") alleges the following facts. Plaintiffs were AAA Premier Members in good standing on September 12, 2018. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) As part of their membership in AAA, Plaintiffs were entitled to the following benefits: "'24/7 access to [AAA's] renowned Roadside Assistance program: towing, lockout service, out of fuel delivery, jump starts, and more.'" (Id. ¶ 9.) As Premier Members, Plaintiffs were also entitled to "Premier Benefits," which included "'battery service, tire change [service], out of fuel [service], lockout service, [and] extricating and [t]owing.'" (Id. ¶ 11). Plaintiffs were denied services to which they were entitled as Premier Members on at least two occasions, including an incident on September 15, 2018 and another on April 11, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 21.)

On September 15, 2018, Hatchigian called AAA's customer call center to request emergency lockout service to help him get into his locked vehicle, which was parked on his property in Philadelphia County. (Id. ¶ 3.) AAA created a Service Ticket; however, no one from AAA ever arrived to provide Hatchigian with this service. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) On September 18, 2018, after AAA failed to arrive, Hatchigian borrowed tools to open his locked car and replaced three lock cylinders. (Docket No. 1 at 49-55 of 200.) Hatchigian later contracted with Mikes Automotive for additional services connected with that vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Mikes Automotive helped him remove an old battery from his vehicle, install a new battery and cables, connect the compressor, and inflate the tires. (Id. ¶ 6.) Mikes Automotive also sold Hatchigian transmission fluid and diesel fuel, and started the new battery so that he could drive his vehicle to Radnor, Pennsylvania. (Id.) AAA told Hatchigian that it would not provide the requested lockout service because his vehicle did not have inspection tags and there is a state rule prohibiting the towing and servicing of vehicles without inspection tags. (Id. ¶ 13.) On October 12 and November 15, 2018,Hatchigian wrote to AAA complaining about AAA's failure to provide the lockout service he had requested and requesting reimbursement for his out of pocket expenses. (Id. ¶ 7; Docket No. 1 at 49-55 of 200.) AAA never responded to Hatchigian's request. (Compl. ¶ 7.)

On January 3, 2019, Hatchigian filed a breach of contract action against AAA in Philadelphia County Municipal Court, requesting compensatory damages for the out-of-pocket expenses he incurred as a result of AAA failing to provide him with the benefits to which he was entitled as a AAA Premier Member. (Id. ¶ 16; Docket No. 1 at 56 of 200.) The Municipal Court heard Hatchigian's lawsuit on March 25, 2019, and the Court entered judgment in AAA's favor. (Compl. ¶ 19; Docket No. 1 at 65 of 200).)

On April 11, 2019, Plaintiffs' vehicle ran out of fuel and left Randazzo stranded at a train station in Upper Merion Township. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Randazzo called AAA to access the out of fuel services included as part of Plaintiffs' AAA Premier Membership. (Id.) Rather than providing the requested help, however, the AAA operator repeatedly put Randazzo on hold and hung up on her. (Id.) Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, and despite Plaintiffs having renewed their Premier Membership with AAA on February 27, 2019, AAA had cancelled their membership. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) AAA had cancelled Plaintiffs' AAA membership in retaliation for Hatchigian's filing the January 3, 2019 Municipal Court action. (Id. ¶ 20.)

The Complaint asserts eight claims under state law: Negligence (Count One), Wrongful Termination of Benefits (Count Two), Breach of Contract (Count Three), Breach of Implied Warranty (Count Four), Breach of Written Services Warranty (Count Five), Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") (Count Six), Intentional Misrepresentation/Inducement (Count Seven), and Unjust Enrichment (Count Eight). The Complaint seeks damages in the amount of $50,000.00, as well as actual, consequential,contract and other damages, statutory damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, and costs of suit, fees, and attorneys' fees as provided by law.

As described above, this action originated with a complaint filed by Richard Hatchigian against AAA Mid-Atlantic Member Relations in the Philadelphia County Municipal Court. (Id. ¶ 16.) After the Municipal Court found in favor of AAA Mid-Atlantic Member Relations on March 25, 2019, Richard Hatchigian filed a notice of appeal of the Municipal Court verdict on April 23, 2019, which he sent to AAA Mid-Atlantic Member Relations on June 11, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 16-19; Docket No. 1 at 62-65 of 200.) Plaintiffs jointly filed the instant Corrected Verified Complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on September 6, 2019. (Docket No. 1 at 8-48 of 200.) AAA removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 11, 2019, contending that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand on October 25, 2019.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

According to the removal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1441, "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Congress has conferred original jurisdiction to district courts in cases of federal question or diversity. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 75,000 and is between 'citizens of different states.'" McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). If the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,remand is mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The defendant bears the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (stating that the removing party "bears the burden of showing, at all stages of the litigation, that the case is properly before the federal court") (citations omitted). "Moreover, the removal statute is 'to be strictly construed against removal and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.'" Sdregas v. Home Depot, Inc., Civ. A. No. 01-5851, 2002 WL 32349815, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2002) (quoting Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to remand this case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on the ground that AAA has failed to meet its burden of showing that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the parties are citizens of different states; rather, Plaintiffs argue that the amount in controversy for this case does not exceed $75,000.² See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

In ascertaining the amount in controversy in removal cases, courts first look to the complaint. Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2004). AAA removed this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, so the sum demanded in good faith in the Complaint is normally deemed to be the amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2). The Complaint asserts an open-ended claim for damages in excess of $50,000.³ (See Compl. ¶ 102(a).)"However, where[, as here,] 'the State practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded,' removal is proper only if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00."⁴ Evans v. Zhang, Civ. A. No. 17-3801, 2017 WL 4547912, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii)-(B)); see also Dorley v. Save-A-Lot, Civ. A. No. 16-4510, 2016 WL 6213074, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2016) (determining that the defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's claims exceed $75,000 because "Pennsylvania does not permit a demand for a specific sum, and [the plaintiff] seeks open-ended damages in excess of $50,000" (quotation marks omitted) (citing Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(b)) (additional citations omitted)); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) ("If the plaintiff contests the defendant's [amount in controversy] allegation, § 1446(c)(2)(B) instructs: '[R]emoval . . . is proper on the basis of an amount in controversy asserted' by the defendant 'if the district court finds, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds' the jurisdictional threshold" (second and third alterations in original)).

"Preponderance of the evidence means 'proof to a reasonable probability that jurisdiction exists.'" Jesmar...