Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`APT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
` :
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-2121
`
`Smith, J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` January 26, 2022
`
`
`
`The plaintiff purchased and enhanced an app which was then made available for purchase
`
`on the defendant’s app store. Unfortunately, a third party stole the access information for this app
`
`and, inter alia, changed the account information so that any subscriber fees for the app went to a
`
`different bank account than the one that the plaintiff had set up with the defendant. Although the
`
`plaintiff raised the issue of the theft of its app with the defendant’s support services, it alleges that
`
`it was unable to get a resolution of the issue despite months of correspondence and negotiation
`
`with the defendant, in large part because the defendant seemingly would not recognize that the
`
`plaintiff owned the app. The plaintiff asserts that it lost not only the subscriber fees for the app for
`
`numerous months but future revenue once the defendant ultimately removed the app from its app
`
`store.
`
`
`
`After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve its issues with the theft of its app by
`
`communicating with the defendant, the plaintiff filed an action in a Pennsylvania state court. The
`
`defendant then removed the matter here claiming that this court has diversity jurisdiction over this
`
`matter. The plaintiff later amended its complaint to attempt to claim an amount in controversy that
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`was below the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold set in the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(a). It also moved to have this court remand the matter to the state court based on
`
`the allegations in the amended complaint because the amount in controversy no longer exceeded
`
`the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
`
`
`
`The defendant opposes this court remanding the matter, and it has separately moved to
`
`have the court dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, transfer this action to the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Upon reviewing the motion to
`
`transfer, the court required the parties to brief this part of the defendant’s motion and then heard
`
`oral argument on the motion to transfer and the plaintiff’s motion to remand.
`
`
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the court will deny the motion to remand and grant the
`
`motion to transfer. With respect to the motion to remand, the court cannot consider the amended
`
`complaint in which the plaintiff attempted to defeat federal jurisdiction by, inter alia, seeking
`
`damages in amount that would not reach the $75,000 threshold. The court therefore could only
`
`review the original complaint, which did not limit the sought-after damages to $75,000 or a lower
`
`amount. The allegations in the original complaint show that the plaintiff was seeking an amount
`
`in excess of $75,000, and the plaintiff has not shown to a legal certainty that it could not recover
`
`in excess of $75,000 based on that original complaint. As such, the court cannot remand this matter
`
`to the state court.
`
`Concerning the motion to transfer, the defendant and the plaintiff are bound by a valid
`
`forum selection clause, which requires that the court transfer this case to the Northern District of
`
`California. In this regard, the court does not find that (1) the forum selection clause is the result of
`
`fraud or overreaching, (2) its enforcement would violate a strong public policy of this forum, or
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`(3) its enforcement would result in litigation so seriously inconvenient and unreasonable that it
`
`would deprive the plaintiff of its day in court. Further, the plaintiff has not shown that the relevant
`
`public interests overwhelmingly disfavor transferring this case to the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`I.
`
`ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`
`
`The original plaintiffs, APT Systems, Inc. (“APT”) and Snapt Games, Inc. (“Snapt”),
`
`commenced this action by filing a complaint against the defendant, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), in the
`
`Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on April 5, 2021.1 See Notice of Removal, Ex. A,
`
`Compl., Doc. No. 1-1. In general, the original plaintiffs’ allegations related to a third-party “thief”
`
`gaining access to their Apple account and operating an app that the plaintiffs owned. See Compl.
`
`at ECF pp. 4–6. This thief obtained the revenue from subscribers’ use of the app, and the plaintiffs
`
`claimed that Apple refused to give them access to their app and the revenue associated with it
`
`despite the plaintiffs having provided Apple with proof of ownership of the app. See id. at ECF
`
`pp. 5–9. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs asserted causes of action for (1) breach of
`
`bailment, (2) conversion, (3) intentional interference of contractual and business relations, and (4)
`
`unjust enrichment. See id. at ECF pp. 9–14. For relief, the plaintiffs sought, inter alia, (1)
`
`consequential and compensatory damages, (2) an accounting, (3) attorney’s fees, (4) equitable
`
`relief in the nature of requiring Apple to establish an App Store Ombudsman, which “under this
`
`court’s order and oversight, . . . [would] fairly, efficiently and expeditiously address issues of
`
`nature, among others, faced by Plaintiffs,” and (5) punitive damages (relating to the conversion
`
`cause of action). See id. at ECF pp. 11, 12, 13, 14.
`
`
`1 This matter was initially assigned to the Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`Apple received a copy of the complaint on April 23, 2021. See Notice of Removal at ¶ 3.
`
`On May 7, 2021, Apple removed the case from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County to
`
`this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 based on this court’s diversity jurisdiction. See id. at
`
`¶ 6. In the notice of removal, Apple claims that the parties are completely diverse because it is a
`
`citizen of California, and the plaintiffs are citizens of Delaware and Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶¶ 8–10.
`
`Apple also asserts that the matter satisfies the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement because
`
`(1) “a reasonable interpretation of Plaintiffs’ requested relief, including for compensatory and
`
`consequential damages, makes it clear that the amount requested exceeds the $75,000 threshold,”
`
`and (2) the parties exchanged letters (which were referenced in the complaint) where the plaintiffs
`
`demanded $225,000 in direct damages. See id. at ¶¶ 11–12.
`
`On June 25, 2021, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to
`
`transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Doc.
`
`No. 4. On July 12, 2021, Judge Schmehl approved a stipulation extending the time for the plaintiffs
`
`to respond to the motion to dismiss until August 9, 2021. See Doc. No. 8. On July 30, 2021, Chief
`
`Judge Juan R. Sanchez reassigned this matter from Judge Schmehl’s calendar to the undersigned’s
`
`calendar. See Doc. No. 19.
`
`On August 9, 2021, APT responded to the motion to dismiss by filing an amended
`
`complaint.2 See Doc. No. 21. The amended complaint contains similar allegations as the original
`
`complaint but as discussed below, it changes the requested relief and removes a cause of action.
`
`
`2 Interestingly, APT is listed as the sole plaintiff in the caption, but the first line of the amended complaint states that
`the plaintiff is only Snapt. See Compl. at 1 (“Plaintiff Snapt Games, Inc. by its undersigned counsel, hereby demand
`judgment against Defendant, Apple Inc. . . . .”); id. at ¶ 1 (“Plaintiff Snapt Games, Inc. (“Snapt”) is a Delaware
`corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of APT Systems, Inc. a Delaware corporation.”). Based on the
`representations in the amended complaint, the court has considered Snapt to be the relevant plaintiff in the amended
`complaint.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`Regarding the allegations in the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in April 2018,
`
`Snapt purchased “ThemeZone Live Wallpapers” App (the “App”), which is a “subscription fee
`
`generating live wallpaper App,” from a third-party developer for $36,000. See Am. Compl. at ¶ 6,
`
`Doc. No. 21. The App was hosted on Apple’s App Store. See id.
`
`Promptly after purchasing the App, Snapt took control over the associated developer
`
`account. See id. at ¶ 8. It changed the administrative contact details and modified App support to
`
`link to Snapt’s official website. See id. It also changed the bank account associated with the App
`
`to its bank account. See id.
`
`By early May 2018, Snapt determined that Apple was not depositing the App’s subscription
`
`fees to Snapt’s bank account. See id. at ¶ 9. Instead, Apple sent those funds to the App’s prior
`
`owner. See id. at ¶ 10.
`
`Snapt’s CEO contacted Apple about this banking issue, and Apple began depositing
`
`Snapt’s portion of the App’s subscriber fees into Snapt’s bank account starting on June 7, 2018.
`
`See id. at ¶ 11. Thereafter, the subscriber fees would arrive in Snapt’s bank account generally
`
`within 60 days after Apple would collect the fees from the App’s subscribers. See id.
`
`In mid-January 2019, Snapt could no longer access its developer account for the App, and
`
`Snapt contacted Apple to inquire about this issue. See id. at ¶ 12. Apple’s support staff required
`
`proof of Snapt’s ownership of the App, so Snapt’s CEO e-mailed documents showing its proof of
`
`ownership to Apple on February 1, 2019. See id. at ¶ 13. Snapt’s CEO continued to place follow-
`
`up phone calls and e-mail messages to Apple’s support staff to address the accessibility issue with
`
`its App. See id. at ¶¶ 13, 15–17.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`Apple’s support staff “escalated” the accessibility issue to Apple’s “operations team” so it
`
`could review and process the issue. See id. at ¶ 14. While the issue was with the operations team,
`
`Snapt’s CEO informed Apple that the App was getting bad reviews due to unauthorized changes,
`
`and she also sought information about where the subscriber fees were being sent. See id. at ¶ 17.
`
`The operations team finally completed its review of the accessibility issue and, on February 26,
`
`2019, Apple e-mailed Snapt’s CEO to inform her that it could not help because the operations team
`
`could not verify Snapt’s Apple ID and control of the account. See id. at ¶ 18.
`
`Snapt’s CEO continued to try to get the accessibility issue resolved with Apple. On March
`
`19, 2019, she e-mailed the following message to Apple:
`
`The app was stolen from us and the revenue as well. We cannot verify or
`authenticate because the questions have been edited and changed by the person who
`took the app and account away from us. We provided proof of ownership already
`and our website is still associated with the app in your store. . . . We are getting
`emails from people who bought the app that we cannot serve. How in good
`conscience can Apple let this crime go on?
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 19. In response to this e-mail, an Apple “senior Advisor with Apple Developer Program
`
`Support” stated:
`
`After thoroughly reviewing your case I understand your company purchased an app
`and hired a developer to manage it. The developer gained access to your Apple ID
`and changed the information associated with the Apple ID so you can no longer
`access it. . . . Finally, I see that you requested to report that an app, “ThemeZone –
`Live Wallpapers,” is in violation of the App Store Guidelines by using your
`organization’s website URL for the app’s support URL. Although I cannot set
`expectations that our App Store Review team will be able to follow up with you on
`this report, I will submit your request for an update to their teams for consideration
`. . . .
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 20.
`
`
`
`A little over a month later, Snapt’s CEO again e-mailed Apple to ask what additional
`
`information it needed from her after she had already provided it with proof of ownership
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`documentation. See id. at ¶ 21. Three days later, Snapt’s CEO received an e-mail from Apple’s
`
`“App Disputes,” which read:
`
`Thank you for your response. According to our records, you are listed as the
`Administrator/Legal contact on this provider account. . . . Please note that we only
`handle claims of intellectual property infringement on the App Store. For all
`technical support and account related questions, please contact the App Store
`Connect Team . . . .
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 22 (alteration omitted).
`
`
`
`Due to Snapt’s inability to retain control over the App and its revenue stream, it “suffered
`
`severe consequential effects.” Id. at ¶ 23. In this regard, it could not justify continuing to pay its
`
`in-house app developer to work on existing and new applications. Id. In addition, APT had set up
`
`Snapt to financially support it, and without that financial support, APT went “dark in the summer
`
`of 2020, [which caused] deleterious effects upon APT’s shareholders.” Id. at ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve its issue with Apple, Snapt then engaged outside
`
`counsel to attempt to resolve the issue. See id. at ¶ 25. After some initial correspondence between
`
`counsel for the parties, Apple’s counsel agreed that Snapt had lost access to the App via a letter
`
`dated October 6, 2020. See id. at ¶¶ 26–28. This caused Apple to remove “Snapt as the
`
`unauthorized support developer for [the App], as requested.” Id. at ¶ 28. According to Snapt, Apple
`
`counsel’s October 6th letter also:
`
`•
`
`indicated that Apple would “cooperate to the extent possible in any action taken
`by Snapt against the individuals who it believes to have wrongfully subverted
`the developer account at issue.” Id.
`
`
`
`•
`
`informed Snapt that the “wrongful subverter”/thief refused to support the App
`independently of Snapt’s website, which caused Apple to remove the App from
`the Apple Store.3 See id. at ¶ 29.
`
`3 According to Snapt, this resulted in an immediate denial of access to over 73,000 paid App subscribers and cessation
`of [the App] generating any future revenue.” Am. Compl. at ¶ 29.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`•
`
`•
`
`informed Snapt that the “wrongful subverter”/thief possibly was the foreign
`developer who sold the App to Snapt. See id. at ¶ 30.
`
`informed Snapt that Apple had changed the App’s associated bank account from
`Snapt’s Wells Fargo bank account to a Russian bank account, which resulted in
`Snapt not receiving the App’s subscription fees collected by Apple since
`February 1, 2019. See id.
`
`•
`
`indicated that Snapt’s website was being used to support two other apps that
`Snapt did not own.4 See id. at ¶ 31.
`
`Along with this correspondence, Snapt’s counsel demanded that Apple return control over
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the developer account to Snapt, restore ownership of the App to Snapt, and account for and
`
`reimburse Snapt for all lost App subscription revenue for which Apple “shared its split with a thief
`
`since February 1, 2019.” Id. at ¶ 32. Apple resisted these demands, and it took the position that it
`
`could not be entirely sure if Snapt was the true owner of the App and its associated developer’s
`
`account. See id. at ¶ 33. To date, Snapt has “received no satisfaction from Apple regarding [its]
`
`repeated requests to address and rectify their loss of [the App] and associated cash subscription
`
`fees, as well as the unauthorized appropriation of Snapt’s website to support” two other apps. See
`
`id. at ¶ 37.
`
`Based on these allegations, Snapt asserts causes of action for (1) breach of bailment, (2)
`
`conversion, and (3) intentional interference of contractual and business relations.5 See id. at 7–11.
`
`For each cause of action, Snapt seeks:
`
`a full and proper accountings [sic] and judgment for compensatory and
`consequential damages of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) against Defendant,
`plus attorney fees, interest, costs, and any further relief deemed appropriate by this
`Honorable Court. Plaintiffs further seek equitable relief to cause Defendant Apple
`to establish an “App Store Ombudsman” (“ASO”). This should require Apple,
`
`4 Upon learning about this “alarming news,” Snapt advised Apple’s counsel to tell Apple to remove Snapt’s support
`for these other unauthorized apps. See Am. Compl. at ¶ 31.
`5 Snapt dropped the unjust enrichment claim asserted in the original complaint.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`under this Court’s order and oversight, to institute a dedicated ASO office to create
`a publicly available mechanism to fairly, efficiently and expediently address issues
`of nature, among others, faced by Plaintiffs [sic].
`
`
`Id. at 9, 10, 11.6
`
`
`
`The court is currently presented with two outstanding substantive motions. The first is
`
`Apple’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer venue, which
`
`it filed on August 18, 2021. See Doc. No. 23. Snapt filed its opposition to this motion on September
`
`1, 2021, see Doc. No. 28, and Apple filed a reply in further support of its motion on September 3,
`
`2021.
`
`
`
`The second motion is Snapt’s motion to remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas
`
`of Berks County. See Doc. No. 26. Apple filed a response in opposition to this motion on
`
`September 1, 2021. See Doc. No. 27.
`
`
`
`The court held oral argument on both motions on September 8, 2021. The motions are ripe
`
`for disposition.
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Snapt’s Motion to Remand
`
`
`
`In its motion to remand, Snapt claims that this court must remand this matter to the Court
`
`of Common Pleas of Berks County because of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Mem. of
`
`Law in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. to Remand at 4–5, Doc. No. 26. More specifically, Snapt contends that
`
`this court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action because the amount in controversy does not
`
`exceed $75,000 because it “specified its damages in an amount not to exceed $75,000” in the
`
`amended complaint. See id. at 3, 4–5. Snapt asserts that the court should consider this claimed
`
`
`6 Snapt no longer seeks punitive damages for its conversion claim.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`amount as the proper amount in controversy because it did not know its actual lost revenue
`
`numbers when it filed the original complaint. See id. at 3. It apparently received the lost revenue
`
`numbers from Apple after filing the complaint, and those numbers show that the amount in
`
`controversy would not exceed $75,000. See id.
`
`
`
`In response to the motion to remand, Apple first asserts that the court must review the
`
`original complaint (and not the amended complaint) when determining whether the court has
`
`diversity jurisdiction over this removed action. See Def. Apple Inc.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to
`
`Pl.’s Mot. to Remand (“Remand Opp’n”) at 4, Doc. No. 27. Apple notes that a plaintiff cannot
`
`attempt to divest a federal court of jurisdiction simply by amending the complaint to assert a
`
`request for damages that is less than the jurisdictional amount. See id. Apple further asserts that in
`
`this case, a review of the original complaint shows that the amount in controversy exceeds the
`
`diversity jurisdiction threshold because, inter alia, the plaintiffs (1) asserted that it spent $36,000
`
`for the App and spent an additional $7,000 to enhance the App; (2) sought all App subscription
`
`fees from February 1, 2019, to date; (3) claimed that their commercial reputation was “denigrated”;
`
`and (4) sought equitable relief and attorney’s fees. See id. at 5–6.
`
`
`
`Apple also contends that even if the court viewed the amended complaint in determining
`
`whether diversity jurisdiction exists in this case, the amended complaint also contains allegations
`
`showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. See id. at 7. As with
`
`its argument regarding the original complaint, Apple points out that the amended complaint seeks
`
`damages for lost revenue and lost value from the App, harm to its reputation, equitable relief, and
`
`attorney’s fees. See id. Apple contends that nothing in the amended complaint or the motion to
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`remand clearly shows that Snapt could never recover the sum necessary to support diversity
`
`jurisdiction. See id.
`
`
`
`As a final argument, Apple argues that Snapt’s contemporaneous representations contradict
`
`its subsequently reduced damages. See id. at 7–9. Apple points out that, pre-suit, Snapt sent
`
`correspondence to Apple indicating that it was seeking a minimum of $180,000 and had retained
`
`a forensic vendor to reach this damages calculation. See id. at 7–8 (citing Sept. 1, 2021 Decl. of
`
`John J. Calandra at ¶ 3). Apple contends that the court can consider Snapt’s own estimation of its
`
`claim when determining whether the complaint satisfied the jurisdictional amount. See id. at 8
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`
`
`After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the applicable record, the court must deny the
`
`motion to remand. As an initial point in this analysis, the court must determine which party has
`
`the burden to show that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. Upon review, it
`
`appears that district courts in Pennsylvania have reached conflicting decisions on this issue.
`
`Compare Weiss v. Friedman Realty Group, Inc., Civ. A. No. 20-3671, 2020 WL 5501314, at *1
`
`(E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2020) (explaining, in addressing plaintiff’s motion to remand, that “[a] defendant
`
`removing a case from state court under § 1332(a) bears the burden of demonstrating, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that the opposing parties are citizens of different states and the
`
`amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold” (citations omitted)); Kopko
`
`v. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-423-MJH, 2020 WL 3496277, at *1 (W.D.
`
`Pa. June 29, 2020) (“It is the removing party’s burden to demonstrate that the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.” (citations omitted)); Hatchigian v. AAA Mid-
`
`Atlantic Member Relations, Civ. A. No. 19-4740, 2020 WL 2745742, at *4 (E.D. Pa. May 27,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`2020) (“Since the burden of establishing jurisdiction always lies with the removing defendant, it
`
`is Defendants’ obligation to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the requisite
`
`jurisdictional amount.” (citation omitted)); Coggins v. Keystone Foods, LLC, 111 F. Supp. 3d 630,
`
`633 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (“The defendant has the burden of proving the action was properly removed.”
`
`(citation omitted)), with Wilson v. Hartford Cas. Co., 492 F. Supp. 3d 417, 423 (E.D. Pa. 2020)
`
`(“It is not the removing defendant’s burden to prove to a legal certainty that the plaintiff is entitled
`
`to recover more than $75,000 when the plaintiff has not specifically averred in the Complaint that
`
`he or she is entitled to an amount below the jurisdictional threshold. In seeking remand, the
`
`challenger to subject matter jurisdiction must prove to a legal certainty that amount in controversy
`
`could not exceed the statutory threshold.”). It also appears that Apple believes that it has the burden
`
`to justify the court not remanding this matter. See Remand Opp’n at 9 (“Apple has met its burden
`
`of establishing that the amount in controversy at the time of removal exceeded $75,000.”
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`Although Apple places the burden on itself here, Snapt has the burden of demonstrating
`
`that the amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied.7 With motions to remand, there are
`
`two scenarios, with the burden of proof changing depending on the scenario. The first scenario is
`
`where “the complaint specifically avers that the amount sought is less than the jurisdictional
`
`minimum.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 196–97 (3d Cir. 2007). In this scenario, “a
`
`defendant seeking removal must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiff can recover the
`
`jurisdictional amount.” Id. at 197. The second scenario occurs where “the plaintiff has not
`
`
`7 Even if Apple had the burden, the court would find that it demonstrated to a legal certainty that the amount in
`controversy sought in the original complaint exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`specifically averred in the complaint that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional
`
`minimum.” Id. In this scenario, “the case must be remanded if it appears to a legal certainty that
`
`the plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount.” Id. Also, in this second scenario, “the
`
`challenger to subject matter jurisdiction ha[s] to prove, to a legal certainty, that the amount in
`
`controversy could not exceed the statutory threshold.” Id. at 195 (citations and footnote omitted).
`
`
`
`Here, the original complaint did not specifically aver that the amount in controversy was
`
`less than $75,000, see Compl. at 10, 11, 12, 13, so the second scenario is applicable. As such, the
`
`court must determine whether it appears to a legal certainty that Snapt cannot recover the
`
`jurisdictional amount.
`
`
`
`In determining whether Snapt can recover the jurisdictional amount, the court must review
`
`the allegations in the original complaint. See Coulter v. Paul Laurence Dunbar Cmty. Ctr., 685 F.
`
`App’x 161, 164 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (“The amount in controversy for diversity purposes is
`
`determined as of the filing of the complaint. Thus, the District Court either had or did not have
`
`diversity jurisdiction at that time.” (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted)); Spectacor Mgmt.
`
`Group v. Brown, 131 F.3d 120, 122 (3d Cir. 1997) (explaining that amount in controversy “is
`
`determined from the good faith allegations appearing on the face of the complaint”). Also, in
`
`removal actions, “[a] district court’s determination as to the amount in controversy must be based
`
`on the ‘plaintiff’s complaint at the time the petition for removal was filed.’” Werwinski v. Ford
`
`Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661, 666 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch Div., 809
`
`F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987)), abrogated on other grounds by Earl v. NVR, Inc., 990 F.3d 310
`
`(3d Cir. 2021); see also Lieb v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 640 F. App’x 194, 196 (3d Cir.
`
`2016) (“When assessing whether allegations in a state-court complaint are sufficient to support
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`removal to federal court, we look to the complaint that was in effect when removal occurred.”).
`
`Moreover, “[a] subsequent amendment to the complaint after removal designed to eliminate the
`
`federal claim will not defeat federal jurisdiction.” Westmoreland Hosp. Ass’n v. Blue Cross of W.
`
`Pa., 605 F.2d 119, 123 (3d Cir. 1979) (citation omitted); Wilson, 492 F. Supp. 3d at 423 (“This
`
`Court and the Third Circuit have held that the amount in controversy is determined as of the date
`
`of removal; that is, a plaintiff may not subsequently amend a complaint so as to defeat federal
`
`jurisdiction.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Mager v. Travelers Home and
`
`Marine Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 19-2469, 2020 WL 211548, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2020) (“A
`
`plaintiff may not amend the complaint to try to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction after removal,
`
`if prior to removal, the complaint satisfied the monetary floor involving over $75,000.”); see also
`
`Dieffenbach v. CIGNA, Inc., 310 F. App’x 504, 507 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“Dieffenbach
`
`also sought a remand in reliance on the amended complaint he filed after the District Court denied
`
`the first remand requests and dismissed the removed complaint. However, ‘a subsequent
`
`amendment to the complaint after removal designed to eliminate the federal claim will not defeat
`
`federal jurisdiction.’” (quoting Westmoreland Hosp. Ass’n, 605 F.2d at 123)).
`
`
`
`Here, Snapt does not appear to contend that the original complaint failed to include
`
`allegations that would satisfy the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold; instead, it
`
`focuses only on the amended complaint. See generally Doc. No. 26. Nonetheless, the court does
`
`not find to a legal certainty that Snapt could not recover $75,000 based on the allegations in the
`
`original complaint. In this regard, the original complaint states that the plaintiffs (including Snapt)
`
`spent $43,000 with respect to purchasing and enhancing the App. See Compl. at ¶ 7, Doc. No. 1-
`
`1. In addition, the plaintiffs indicated that they sought the return of all subscriber fees from the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`App from February 1, 2019, to date, and with interest. See id. at ¶ 45. Moreover, the plaintiffs
`
`alleged that they suffered “significant losses,” id. at ¶ 46, and damages to their “commercial
`
`reputation.” Id. at ¶ 52.
`
`The plaintiffs also sought damages for the loss of the App. Id. at ¶ 48. In their requests for
`
`relief, the plaintiffs sought, inter alia, compensatory and consequential damages in each of the
`
`four counts of the complaint, and they sought punitive damages with respect to their conversion
`
`claim. See id. at 10, 11, 12, 13. Based on these allegations, the court cannot say to a legal certainty
`
`that the plaintiffs could not recover more than $75,000. See Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989 F.2d 142,
`
`146 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[T]he amount in controversy is not measured by the low end of an open-
`
`ended claim, but rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated.”).8
`
`
`
`Even if, as Snapt argues, the court were to only look at the amended complaint in
`
`determining the amount in controversy, it also appears that the amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$75,000 despite Snapt’s attempt to limit the damages to $70,000. In this regard, and as noted above,
`
`the amended complaint still includes claims for lost revenue, harm to its reputation, and equitable
`
`relief. Also, while not discussed by either party, Snapt could recover separate damages for at least
`
`two of its three causes of action. For example, Snapt’s conversion claim is seemingly based on
`
`Apple depriving it of its App subscription funds while also taking (upon information and belief)
`
`30% of those funds despite being placed on notice that Apple was sending the funds to a thief. See
`
`
`8 Additionally, the plaintiffs appear to have believed that the amount exceeded $75,000 in their correspondence with
`Apple. See, e.g., Sept. 1, 2021 Decl. of John J. Calandra at ¶¶ 3–7, Doc. No. 27-1. This information would also be
`sufficient, on an alternative basis, to demonstrate that the amount-in-controversy is satisfied in this case. See, e.g.,
`Ketz v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., No. 3:07cv731, 2007 WL 1726514, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 14, 2007) (“Here, on
`September 18, 2006, plaintiffs made a settlement demand of $200,000. Consequentially, we alternatively find the
`statutory minimum of $75,000 satisfied because an independent appraisal of the claim’s value reveals an amount in
`controversy of $200,000. Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is established.”).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00524-JSC Document 32 Filed 01/26/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`Am. Comp. at ¶¶ 49–50. Snapt could also separately recover for its intentional interference with
`
`contractual/business relations claim, which is based on Apple interfering with Snapt’s contractual
`
`business relations with the App’s subscribers. See id. at ¶ 53. Snapt alleges that this interference
`
`“severed [Snapt] from [its] contractual and business relations with each of [its] existing and
`
`prospective [App] subscribers.” Id. at ¶ 54.
`
`As demonstrated by the language Snapt uses in its amended complaint, it is claiming
`
`different harms and seeking different recoveries for thes