Storm

The matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion To'Dismiss and for more definite statement.

As to all of the Plaintiffs, except Elsie Hansen, the Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that the amount involved is less than the jurisdictional amount of $3,000.00 required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 .

The Defendant relied upon Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583 , 59 S.Ct. 744, 748 , 83 L.Ed. 1001 , which was a .suit to enjoin the enforcement of the California Caravan Act, exacting a license fee upon certain automobile dealers in a sum less than $3,000.

I do not think Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., is applicable, because as the Court pointed out therein, the numerous Plaintiffs had “No joint or common interest or title in the subject matter of the suit.” In the instant case, the Plaintiffs do- have a common title in the Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California as the basis for the claim in this action.

*357 The rule applicable here is set forth in Shields v. Thomas, 1854, 17 How. 3 , 15 L.Ed. 93 , and cases relying upon that decision. In that case the Court points out that the matter in controversy was the total sum due by virtue of a previous judgment in the…