United States Fourth Circuit

In plaintiff's suit against one of its franchisees, claiming that the franchisee breached his post-termination duties by using his former office to support a competing tax enterprise and by failing to return the requisite materials to plaintiff, district court's dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where: 1) jurisdiction turns not on the sum contained in plaintiff's summary judgment motion, but on the good faith of the allegation in its complaint of an adequate jurisdictional amount, and here, the district court did not find, nor has defendant even argued, that plaintiff made a bad faith claim of $80,000 in its complaint; and 2) plaintiff has demonstrated that the injunction, whether valued for the benefit it confers on plaintiff or the detriment it imposes on defendant, arguably yields a figure that exceeds the necessary jurisdictional amount.

Appellate Information

• Argued 09/23/2010
• Decided 11/10/2010
• Published 11/10/2010

Judges

• MOTZ

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David Andrew Lindley, Dannielle C. Hall-McIvor