Ly v. ICIMS, INC. et al
Mohamed Ly |
ICIMS, INC., Mahadevan Subramani, Laura Coccaro and Steve Lucas |
3:2023cv30042 |
April 18, 2023 |
US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
Timothy S Hillman |
Contract: Other |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE.(Barrows, Jennifer) |
Filing 9 District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting #7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff has invoked diversity jurisdiction as the basis for filing suit in this Court. However, it is apparent from the face of the Complaint that the amount in controversy is less than $75,000 as the substantive claim before the Court is for breach of a settlement agreement, more specifically, Defendants' alleged failure to pay him $21,597.50 due thereunder. Because Plaintiff's claim sounds in contract, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages are not cognizable. Moreover, even if under the settlement agreement the pro se Plaintiff would be entitled to recover the $6,000 he claims for attorneys' fees should he prevail, the amount in controversy would still be far less than $75,000. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Barrows, Jennifer) |
Filing 8 MEMORANDUM in Support re #7 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Laura Coccaro, ICIMS, INC., Steve Lucas, Mahadevan Subramani. ( Siegal, Jack) |
Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ( Responses due by 6/5/2023) by Laura Coccaro, ICIMS, INC., Steve Lucas, Mahadevan Subramani.( Siegal, Jack) |
Filing 6 District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #2 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. Pro se litigants must have an individual PACER account to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. To register for a PACER account, go the Pacer website at #https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account.Pro se e-filing account Instructions #https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-pro-se.htm.If you already have a PACER account with E-Filing access as a pro se litigant, you do not need to register again. Please email tracy_mclaughlin@mad.uscourts.gov. (Burgos, Sandra) |
Filing 5 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Zamorski, Michael) |
Filing 4 Filing fee/payment: $ 402.00, receipt number 300000168 for #1 Complaint (Zamorski, Michael) |
Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Timothy S. Hillman assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Mohamed Ly.(Zamorski, Michael) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Mohamed Ly. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Form, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit)(Zamorski, Michael) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.