{"id":66,"date":"2011-04-13T15:15:25","date_gmt":"2011-04-13T15:15:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=66"},"modified":"2011-07-15T09:58:00","modified_gmt":"2011-07-15T13:58:00","slug":"diversity-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/diversity-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"Diversity Jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"

If a case does not raise a federal question, the parties must be diverse in order to proceed in federal court. Diversity means that adverse parties are from different states. This is easy to see if there are only two parties involved (one plaintiff and one defendant). If the plaintiff is from Florida and the defendant is from Georgia, you have diversity. If the plaintiff is from Florida and the defendant is from Florida, you do not have diversity. However, what if their are multiple parties on one or both of the sides of the conflict?<\/p>\n

Federal courts require that complete diversity<\/strong> exist in order to proceed in federal court. Complete diversity means that all of the plaintiffs must be diverse from all of the defendants. This is instead of minimal diversity where only one of the adverse parties would have to be diverse (i.e. two plaintiffs, one from Florida and one from Georgia v. one defendant, from Florida). The monumental case that recognized that complete diversity is required was Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). In Strawbridge, the Court recognized that although the Constitution only requires minimum diversity,\u00a0 Congress (through 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)<\/a>) imposes a requirement of complete diversity.<\/p>\n

Diversity of Citizenship<\/span><\/p>\n

Now that complete diversity is required, how do you determine where a party is citizen. For individual persons, domicile and citizenship are identical for purposes\u00a0 of diversity jurisdiction, and require both presence and an intent to remain permanently<\/strong> or indefinitely. Sheehan v. Gustafson, 967 F.2d 1214 (1992). Some courts state the latter requirement as the lack of any definite intent to leave. Finally, it is important to understand that an individual can only be a citizen of one state at a time. In other words, you keep the citizenship you have until you establish a new one.<\/p>\n

Conversely, a corporation can have more than one place of citizenship for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. Corporations are citizens of both states that they are incorporated and their principal place of business. Hertz Corp v. Friend, 297 Fed. Appx. 690 (2010).<\/p>\n

It is important to recognize that the standard of appellate review for diversity of citizenship is clearly erroneous because it is a mixed question of law and fact.<\/p>\n

Amount in Controversy<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to diversity of citizenship the Federal courts require that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. There are a few nuances to amount in controversy but for the most part it is straight forward because the goal is to make this an easy standard because we don’t want to litigate about the amount in controversy. In measuring whether the amount in controversy the standard is that the complaint will be dismissed if it “appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.” St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938).<\/p>\n