Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research & Docum v. Fox Point Pictures, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
ZORYAN INSTITUTE FOR
CONTEMPORARY ARMENIAN
RESERACH & DOCUMENTATION,
a
Massachusetts Nonprofit Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
FOX POINT PICTURES, LLC,
a
Rhode Island Limited Liability
Company; THEORDORE BOGOSIAN;
DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 24-109-JJM-AEM
ORDER
Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research & Documentation
(“Zoryan”) claims that Fox Point Pictures, LLC, and Theordore Bogosian (“Fox Point
Pictures”) breached a contract between the two entities when it did not give Zoryan
proper credit for its funding and involvement in a documentary movie about the
Armenian Genocide. 	Zoryan invoked the diversity jurisdiction of this Court in its
Complaint, which Fox Point Pictures now challenges, claiming that the amount in
controversy is not greater than $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. ECF No. 56-
1 at 13–17.
I. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
When there is a challenge to the jurisdictional amount in a diversity case in
federal court, there are a number of axioms from the United States Supreme Court
Case 1:24-cv-00109-JJM-AEM Document 89 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
and the First Circuit that govern this Court’s analysis and conclusion. The following
standards provide the Court with a framework for its analysis:
1. 	It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that the Court has jurisdiction. Here,
Zoryan has the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.
	Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446 (1942) (“The
policy of the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction upon the district
courts calls for its strict construction. 	Accordingly, if a plaintiff’s
allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the
plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations by competent
proof.” (citation omitted)).
2. 	“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction .
. . the district court must construe the complaint liberally, treating all
well-pleaded facts as true and indulging all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff.”
	Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209–10
(1st Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
3. 	“It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than
the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”
St. Paul Mercury Indem.
Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–89 (1938) (“the sum claimed by
the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.”)
(citation omitted).
4. 	A court may look beyond the pleadings to decide if it has jurisdiction.
The district court may rely on documentary evidence to establish
Case 1:24-cv-00109-JJM-AEM Document 89 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
whether jurisdiction attaches.
See Padilla-Mangual v. Pavia Hosp., 516
F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2008)
II. 	DISCUSSION
With the law as our north guiding star, here we go - Has Zoryan shown that
its claims exceed at least $75,000 or does it appear to a legal certainty that they do
not?
Fox Point Pictures submits evidence showing that Zoryan paid only about
$60,000 of the contract price from its own funds, and that another entity or entities
paid the remainder of the $150,000 contract claim.
	See ECF No. 56-1 at 13–17.
Zoryan claims that Fox Point Pictures received over $150,000 for the film under the
contract and “the entirety of the funding was provided by Plaintiff.” 	ECF No. 68 at
2.
The lawsuit involves allegations of a breach of contract between Zoryan and
Fox Point Pictures. 	The amount of damages at issue are those that Zoryan alleges
arise from the breach of that contract for the monies paid to Fox Point Pictures under
the contract. As a party to the contract, Zoryan remained liable to Fox Point Pictures
for the full amount of the contract, regardless of where Zoryan obtained the money to
meet their contractual obligation. 	Who supplied the money for Zoryan’s completion
of its contractual obligations, is not relevant to the contract terms, which are solely
between Zoryan and Fox Point Pictures. 	If funding was independently provided by
Zoryan Canada or any other entity, it is sufficient because it was provided under the
Case 1:24-cv-00109-JJM-AEM Document 89 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
contract for the film. 	The funding was provided as Zoryan’s consideration for the
contract, and Zoryan is a party to the contract with Fox Point Pictures.
Thus, Fox Point Pictures cannot claim the jurisdictional amount is not met
merely because some of the payments came from a different bank account than
Zoryan. 	Consequently, the Court determines that Zoryan has alleged a good faith
claim for damages that meets this Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements.
See
Anderson v. Vagaro, Inc., 57 F.4th 11, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2023) (“The sum claimed by the
plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. 	It must appear to a
legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify
dismissal.”) (cleaned up).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Because the Defendant has not shown to a legal certainty that the Plaintiff’s
claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount, the Court DENIES Fox Point
Pictures, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
May 27, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00109-JJM-AEM Document 89 Filed 05/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>