Coventry Sewage Associates v. Dworkin Realty Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
71 F.3d 1 (1995)
Facts
Coventry Sewage Associates and Woodland Manor Improvement Association (Coventry) (plaintiffs) entered an agreement to provide private sewer services to The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Dworkin Realty Co. (Stop & Shop) (defendants). Fees under the agreement were determined, in part, by the amount of water used by Stop & Shop. In order to track that amount, Stop & Shop forwarded to Coventry its invoices from the Kent County Water Authority (KCWA). After Coventry increased the service fee—contending that such increase was authorized by the parties’ contract—Stop & Shop stopped paying Coventry. In October 1994, Coventry sued Stop & Shop in a federal district court, under its diversity jurisdiction, seeking $74,953 for Stop & Shop’s nonpayment. In November, Stop & Shop asked KCWA about its invoices. KCWA determined that it had been incorrectly reading Stop & Shop’s water meters. KCWA submitted corrected invoices, which resulted in Coventry’s claim against Stop & Shop dropping to $18,667.18. The claim was reduced even further, to $8,485.40, when Stop & Shop paid the undisputed portion of the balance. Stop & Shop moved to dismiss Coventry’s suit on the ground that the reduced amount in controversy deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Coventry appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stahl, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
