Feliz-Cuevas v. Mouldoon ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________


        No. 94-1963

                                 VICTOR FELIZ-CUEVAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                  EDWARD T. MULDOON,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________

            Victor Feliz-Cuevas on brief pro se.
___________________
            Paul V. Buckley and Danna A. Curhan on brief for appellee.
_______________     _______________


                                 ____________________
                                   January 25, 1995
                                 ____________________






























                      Per Curiam.  We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's
__________

            contract  action  against  his  former attorney  because  the

            federal  court  lacked  jurisdiction  to  decide   the  case.
_______

            Whether  defendant  had  violated  the  alleged  agreement to

            represent plaintiff  presented only  an issue  of state  law,
_____

            which a federal  court may not decide unless the requirements
_______

            for diversity jurisdiction, one of  which is that the  amount

            in   controversy  exceed  $50,000,  28  U.S.C.     1332,  are

            satisfied.   While plaintiff's complaint sought return of his

            $16,000 deposit,  plus  $4,000,000 in  punitive  damages  and

            $2,000,000 in  compensatory damages, the  latter two  amounts

            can  not be  counted  because  punitive  damages may  not  be

            recovered  under Massachusetts  law  in  a  contract  action,

            DeRose  v. Putnam  Management  Co., 398  Mass. 205,  212, 496
__________________________________

            N.E.2d 428, 432  (1986), and the factual  situation described

            in the complaint would not permit a compensatory damage award

            in  an amount  sufficient to  meet  the $50,000  requirement.

            Regardless  whether or  not  defendant wrongfully  refused to

            return  plaintiff's   $16,000  deposit,  plaintiff   was  not

            justified in illegally entering  this country, and  defendant

            can  not  be  held financially  responsible  for  plaintiff's

            present incarceration.

                 The judgment dismissing plaintiff's action is affirmed. 

            Where,  as here, the  requirements for diversity jurisdiction

            have not been satisfied, a  contract action belongs in  state



                                         -2-















            court.



















































                                         -3-