Even Though Plaintiff Alleged $4,999,999 In Damages, It Was "Unnecessary" To Determine Whether Plaintiff May Limit The Amount In Controversy So As To Avoid Federal Jurisdiction
In Vanyo v. Citifinancial Inc., No. 1:06CV2943, 2007 WL 1795959 (N.D. Oh. June 20, 2007), a loan borrower filed a class action suit against his lender, alleging that the lender failed to file a timely termination statement for a loan covering consumer goods, entitling him to statutory damages of $500 under Ohio Rev. Code § 1309.513. The borrower alleged that the class had suffered $4,999,999 in damages. The lender removed the case to federal court, arguing that the borrower was attempting to to cap damages at $1 less than the threshold to avoid federal jurisdiction.
The defendant provided an affidavit from the Ohio Secretary of State's office, stating that there were 22,837 active financing statements on file in which the lender was identified as the secured party, which would result in damages of $11,418,000. However, the court rejected this affidavit as evidence of the size of the class, determining that "this categorization is improper, as it exceeds the scope of Section 1309.625, which provides statutory damages for a limited class of claimants--those who (1) have active financing statements with the defendant, (2) covering consumer goods, (3) the loans for which have been paid-off, but for which (4) the defendant did not timely file a termination statement."
The court concluded:
"[The lender] has therefore failed to provide sufficient evidence that the putative class is large enough to support aggregate damages greater than CAFA's statutory minimum to establish subject matter jurisdiction. It is therefore unnecessary for this court to decide whether the plaintiff may limit the amount in controversy in the complaint by refusing to accept damages over a certain dollar amount."