take any time off from work as the result of these incidents, nor did she seek medical or psychiatric treatment. Id. at 9-11, 76.
These facts, as stated by the plaintiff, do not state a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress or punitive damages. It is proper for the Court to examine these claims in order to determine whether the jurisdictional amount is satisfied. Kahal v. J.W. Wilson & Associates, Inc., 218 U.S. App. D.C. 156, 673 F.2d 547, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be based on conduct which is "wanton, outrageous in the extreme, or especially calculated to cause serious mental distress." Shewmaker v. Minchew, 504 F. Supp. 156, 163 (D.D.C. 1980), aff'd, 215 U.S. App. D.C. 53, 666 F.2d 616 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam). In the same vein, punitive damages are recoverable only if the defendant "acts with such conscious and deliberate disregard of the consequences of his actions to others that his conduct is wanton." Knippen v. Ford Motor Co., 178 U.S. App. D.C. 227, 546 F.2d 993, 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 2, at 9-10 (1971)). None of the actions of defendants could possibly meet this exacting standard. Thus, counts two and four of the complaint and the claim for punitive damages cannot afford a basis for this Court's jurisdiction.
Count one, which alleges false imprisonment, and count three, which alleges assault, provide the only remaining basis for relief. Although the Court concludes that these claims are frivolous at best, it cannot conclude as a matter of law that these claims fail to state a cause of action.
The Court does, however, conclude that these claims were improperly removed from Superior Court because it "appears to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount . . . ." St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 82 L. Ed. 845, 58 S. Ct. 586 (1938). The Court is aware that this test is a stringent one. Martin v. Gibson, 232 U.S. App. D.C. 463, 723 F.2d 989, 993 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, this test is met because the plaintiff could not as a matter of law be awarded damages in excess of $10,000. She did not seek medical attention, and there is no possibility of exemplary damages. Id. at 992 n.3 (citing James v. Lusby, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 352, 499 F.2d 488 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Whatever emotional distress she may have suffered cannot inflate her claim to satisfy the jurisdictional amount. Accordingly, it is this 19th day of April, 1985,
That this case is remanded to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Clerk of this Court shall deliver a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Superior Court and take all other appropriate steps. Each party shall bear its own costs because nonremovability was not obvious from the face of the complaint. Pack v. Rich Terminal Co., 502 F. Supp. 58, 60 (S.D. Ohio 1980). The defendants may reclaim the surety bond filed in support of their petition for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.