Chaganti

MEMORANDUM **

Naren Chaganti (“Chaganti”) appeals the dismissal of his suit against Paul Arena and i2 Phone International, Inc.-(collectively, the “Defendants”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the district court misapplied California state law in concluding that he failed to state allegations sufficient to meet 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)’s $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. Reciting the facts only as necessary, we affirm.

The parties first dispute whether there was a contract implied-in-fact or a quasi-contract for Chaganti’s provisional patent application work. We need not decide whether there was a contract implied-in-fact or if, instead, Chaganti should be compensated in quantum meruit. Under either theory, Chaganti would be entitled to expenses plus his hourly fee for the, work, or $46,744. In other words, Cha-ganti claims no more under the alleged implied-in-fact contract than the reasonable value of his services. With respect to his claim for the provisional patent application work, Chaganti has therefore established an amount in controversy of $46,744.

Chaganti also claims he is entitled to 500,000 shares of stock in i2 Phone, worth approximately…