Also known as: amounts in controversy · jurisdictional amount
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The monetary value of the relief demanded by a plaintiff in a civil action. In diversity jurisdiction cases the claimed amount must exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs to satisfy the statutory threshold.
Amelia Amari sues Astra Aerospace for $62,000 in unpaid consulting fees. Astra seeks extensive electronic discovery spanning five years of internal communications. The court restricts the requests after weighing the modest amount in controversy against the expense and burden of production.
Austin Abbott claims $90,000 in damages from a defective product sold by Apex Dynamics. Angela Acosta joins with a $45,000 claim arising from the same manufacturing defect. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Angela's claim because Austin's independent satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement supports jurisdiction over the related claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Antonio Alvarado alleges $80,000 in lost profits from Ashford Manufacturing's breach of a supply contract. Ashford serves 75 interrogatories seeking detailed financial data. The court sustains the requests after finding them proportional given the amount in controversy and the centrality of the information to damages calculation.
Aisha Ahmed challenges a city's taking of her commercial property and demands compensation exceeding $75,000. The city argues the fair market value is only $40,000. The court treats the difference between the parties' valuations as the amount in controversy for diversity purposes.
Anthony Arnold sues a real estate company for racial discrimination in the sale of a home, seeking $120,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The court finds the pleaded damages satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals terminates an employee's long-term disability payments valued at $95,000 over the expected benefit period. The employee sues in federal court claiming wrongful termination of benefits. The court accepts the present value of the stream of payments as the amount in controversy.
The amount claimed must exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. A plaintiff's good-faith allegation controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim cannot reach that figure.
Supporting sources
Separate and distinct claims cannot be aggregated. Each plaintiff must independently satisfy the $75,000 threshold unless supplemental jurisdiction applies under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Supporting sources
The sum demanded in the initial pleading is presumed correct if made in good faith. The defendant may assert a higher amount in the notice of removal and must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the threshold is met.
Interest that is merely incidental to the claim does not count. Punitive damages and interest that forms part of the underlying debt may be included when they are recoverable under applicable law.
Supporting sources
…"[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may…