Davis v. Kia Motors America, Inc. , 408 F. App'x 731 ( 2011 )

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2296
SABRINA D. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
KIA MOTORS OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (6:08-cv-01937-RBH)
Submitted: January 12, 2011 Decided: January 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sabrina D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David Christopher Marshall,
Curtis L. Ott, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, PA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Sabrina D. Davis appeals a decision of the district
court dismissing her action against Kia Motors America, Inc.
(“KMA”) for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. *
Davis’s action proceeded under diversity jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006). The district court dismissed Davis’s
action for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that, “to a legal
certainty,” Davis could not recover damages in excess of the
$75,000 jurisdictional amount applicable in diversity cases
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
We review de novo an order dismissing a complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier,
624 F.3d 635, 637 (4th Cir. 2010). “In most [diversity] cases,
the ‘sum claimed by the plaintiff controls’ the amount in
controversy determination.” Id. (quoting St. Paul Mercury
Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)). However,
*
In a prior opinion we dismissed Davis’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction on the ground that her notice of appeal was
untimely. Davis v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 370 F. App’x 408
(4th Cir.) (No. 09-2296), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 196 (2010).
However, because no separate entry of judgment was filed in the
district court, judgment was not entered until January 15, 2010,
and Davis’s notice of appeal was timely. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(2), (7). Under these extraordinary circumstances, we have
exercised our inherent authority to sua sponte grant rehearing
and recall the mandate in this appeal. See Calderon v.
Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50 (1998). We vacate our original
opinion, and replace it with this opinion.
3
even if the plaintiff seeks damages sufficient to satisfy the
statutory amount, a court can dismiss the action when, “from the
proofs, the court is satisfied to a [legal] certainty that the
plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount.” St. Paul
Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289.
Here, the district court concluded that, “to a legal
certainty,” Davis could not recover the jurisdictional amount,
based on the warranty under which Davis sought relief. We agree
with the district court’s conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm
the decision of the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4