The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gladys Kessler United States District Judge
There are four Motions pending before the Court at this time: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [#84], Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Defendant Reginald Holt [#82], Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment [#95], and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#96]. Upon consideration of all the pleadings, the extensive record in this case, and the applicable case law, the Court concludes that all the Motions should be denied.
I. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#84]
1. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the jurisdictional amount of $75,000 in damages because his original Complaint claimed only $36,273 in damages. Plaintiff subsequently amended his Complaint and claimed damages totaling in excess of $150,000.
2. In Washer v. Bullitt County, 110 U.S. 558, 562 (1884), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's properly amended complaint supercedes prior pleadings and controls the determination as to whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied. In that case, the allegations in the original complaint were "less than $5,000 and therefore not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction." 110 U.S. at 561. In the amended complaint, those allegations were withdrawn and replaced by allegations that the sum due to the plaintiffs was $5,325.14, an amount which would have satisfied the then existing jurisdictional requirements. In concluding that the lower court erred in dismissing the case, the Supreme Court explained that when "a petition [i.e., a complaint] is amended by leave of the court the cause proceeds on the amended petition. It was upon the amended petition that the judgment of the court below was given, and the question brought here by this writ of error is the sufficiency of the amended petition. If its averments show that this court has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction will be maintained without regard to the original petition." 110 U.S. at 562.
3. In the present case, the Amended Complaint "show[s] that this court has jurisdiction [and therefore] the jurisdiction will be maintained without regard to the original petition." 110 U.S. at 562. See also National Mortgage Co. v. Navarro, 220 F.R.D. 102, 106 (D.C. D.C. 2004)
4. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes claims alleging $75,000 or more in damages.
II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT REGINALD L. HOLT [#82]
5. Defendants argue that Defendant Reginald L. Holt cannot be held liable in his individual capacity because he acted solely as an agent of Mundy, Holt & Mance, P.C. Under District of Columbia law, an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be held personally liable. Rittenberg v. Donohoe, 426 A.2d 338, 334 (D.C. 1981).
6. Plaintiff has submitted substantial evidence in support of his contention that Holt was acting in his individual capacity, that he was a shareholder/officer, not an agent, of Mundy, Holt & Mance, P.C., and that the firm did not exist as a legal entity. The scope of Holt's agency and his relationship with the firm is plainly a material issue of fact which is highly contested. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Reginald L. Holt must be denied.
III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#95]
7. Defendants ask that this case be dismissed in its entirety and/or that summary judgment be granted. Counsel for Defendants fails to distinguish between a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motion for dismissal and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment. They are very different procedural vehicles.
8. Defendants' basic argument seems to be that the third party beneficiary theory relied upon by Plaintiff is precluded by Hopkins v. Akins, 637 A.2d 424, 429 (D.C. 1993), which held that it does not apply in an adversarial context. Depending on which version of the disputed facts are accepted by the fact finder, the third party beneficiary theory may or may not apply.
9. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff received approximately $150,000 because the proposed will was not signed by his mother, the decedent, Lew Gin Gee Jung. According to Defendants, if that will had been signed and probated, Plaintiff would have received nothing. Plaintiff maintains that his sister Yoh did not have survivorship rights in certain bank accounts and ...