United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
29, 2016, Plaintiff Global Archery Products, Inc., filed its
Third Amended Complaint [ECF No. 32] against Defendants
Ashleigh Rene Firgaira, Archery Sports, and Archery Attack,
alleging breach of a covenant not to compete and a failure to
return equipment as required by a License Agreement. On May
24, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.
48] for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the
Plaintiff could not establish that the amount in controversy
was greater than $75, 000. The Plaintiff responded [ECF No.
50] on June 7, 2017, and the Defendants replied [ECF No. 51]
on June 14, 2017. On July 21, 2017, the Court denied [ECF No.
52] the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, finding that
certain sales of archery equipment by the Defendants,
allegedly made in violation of the License Agreement,
exceeded $75, 000.
Defendants have now filed a Motion for Reconsideration [ECF
No. 70] of the Court's denial of their Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for doing so
has passed. In support of their Motion, the Defendants point
to a stipulation (see ECF No. 70-1) signed by the
Plaintiff that the sales on which the Court relied to find
that the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000 were not,
and could not, be at issue in the present litigation.
motions to reconsider final judgments, which are governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, a motion to
reconsider an interlocutory order [under Rule 54(b)] may be
entertained and granted as justice requires.” Azko
Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 909 F.Supp. 1154, 1159
(N.D. Ind. 1995). Rule 54(b) provides in relevant part:
[A] ny order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
beneficial aspect of distinguishing between the two methods
of relief is readily apparent when the strict standard for
granting relief under Rule 60(b) is contrasted with the
practically unbridled discretion of a district court to
reconsider a previous interlocutory order [under Rule
54(b)].” Fisher v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
Corp., 152 F.R.D. 145, 149 (S.D. Ind. 1993). A court may
reconsider prejudgment interlocutory decisions at any time
prior to final judgment. In re 949 Erie St.,
Racine, Wis., 824 F.2d 538, 541 (7th Cir. 1987) (citing
Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Percy, 800 F.2d
108, 110 (7th Cir. 1986)).
final judgment has been entered in this case, and the Court
finds that reconsideration of its July 21, 2017, Opinion and
Order would be in the interests of justice.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint bases subject-matter
jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties
to an action on each side are citizens of different states,
with no defendant a citizen of the same state as any
plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). In this case, the
parties disputed only whether the amount in controversy
requirement was met. A federal court has subject-matter
jurisdiction “unless recovery of an amount exceeding
the jurisdictional minimum is legally impossible.”
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Haight, 697 F.3d
582, 585 (7th Cir. 2012).
Defendants argued previously that, at most, the amount in
controversy in this case is $20, 147, which represents
non-sales profits and the value of equipment that the
Defendants failed to return to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
argued that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75, 000
threshold because it can aggregate the $20, 147 amount with
the amount that previously named Defendants Chris Firgaira
and Archery Attack Proprietary Limited profited from
equipment sales, which is allegedly between $119, 850 and
Court concluded that the amount in controversy requirement
was met because the Plaintiff could aggregate the sales in
question, pushing the amount in controversy well past the
$75, 000 requirement. (See Opinion and Order, ECF
No. 52.) Now, however, the Plaintiff has signed a stipulation
that these sales are not in controversy, and it has no right
to recover on them. The Defendants assert that the
Plaintiff's damages are now capped at $20, 147: $16, 850
for non-sales-related profits and $3, 297 for the value of
unreturned equipment. No further sources of damages have been
on this new information, the Court finds that it is legally
impossible for the amount in controversy in this case to
exceed $75, 000. Given the Plaintiff's stipulation
regarding the sales on which the Court relied in denying the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 48] and the lack
of argument by the Plaintiff that its damages exceed $20,
147, the Court finds that it does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider
[ECF No. 70] the Court's July 21, 2017, Opinion and ...