eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-03

Leo India Films Ltd. v. godaddy.com, LLC ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEO INDIA FILMS LTD., DBA                       No.    20-15494
Einthusan.TV,
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04803-DLR
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
GODADDY.COM, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2021
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,** District
Judge.
Leo India Films Ltd. appeals the dismissal of its complaint against
GoDaddy.com, LLC, alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference and seeking
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
monetary and injunctive relief. The district court granted GoDaddy.com’s motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) after concluding that the
amount in controversy did not exceed the $75,000 threshold for subject matter
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a). We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . Reviewing de novo, Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,
    231 F.3d 1129
    , 1130
(9th Cir. 2000), we vacate and remand.
For purposes of determining the amount in controversy in a diversity action,
“[t]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls so long as the claim is made in good
faith.”
    Id. at 1131
    . Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is warranted if it appears to a
“legal certainty” that the claim is actually for less than the jurisdictional amount.
Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel-Las Vegas, Inc.,
    802 F.2d 362
    , 364 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, the district court concluded that it was a legal certainty the amount in
controversy did not exceed $75,000 because one of the operative agreements
between the parties contains a limitation of liability clause capping damages at
$10,000. When reaching this conclusion, it does not appear that the district court
considered our decision in Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel.
Lhotka,
    599 F.3d 1102
    , 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). We therefore vacate and remand to
the district court for further consideration in light of Geographic Expeditions.
VACATED AND REMANDED. Each party shall bear their own costs
on appeal.
2                                    20-15494