Also known as: amount in controversy requirement · amount in controversy · jurisdictional amount
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory monetary threshold that a claim must exceed to support federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The current threshold stands at $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. A plaintiff satisfies the requirement by alleging the amount in good faith unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim cannot reach the threshold.
Angela Acosta sues Arcadia Retail in federal court for breach of a supply contract seeking $120,000 in damages. During discovery Arcadia moves for a protective order limiting requests for five years of global sales data. The court denies the motion in part because the amount in controversy justifies targeted production but refuses the full request as disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Adrian Aguilar from State A sues Azure Solutions from State B for $90,000 on a contract claim that meets the amount requirement. Adrian then joins an additional state-law claim for $40,000 arising from the same transaction. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claim because it shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Austin Abbott serves broad interrogatories on Atlas Ventures in a $95,000 diversity suit. Atlas objects that the requests are unduly burdensome given the amount in controversy. The court sustains the objection in part after finding that the discovery requests fail the certification standard that balances burden against the stakes of the case.
Anika Anand files a diversity class action against Argonaut Shipping seeking $80,000 on her individual claim while class members seek smaller sums. The court retains jurisdiction over the class because Anika's claim satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement and supplemental jurisdiction covers the remaining claims.
Anthony Arnold sues American Express in federal court alleging $85,000 in damages under a contract containing an arbitration clause. The defendant moves to compel arbitration. The court first confirms that the pleaded amount satisfies the diversity threshold before addressing the enforceability of the clause.
Aaron Adams files a diversity action in federal court seeking $78,000. The defendant argues that a state procedural rule requiring a higher showing should apply. The court rejects the argument and holds that the federal amount-in-controversy requirement governs the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The threshold is $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. A plaintiff satisfies it by alleging the amount in good faith unless it is legally certain the claim cannot reach that figure.
Separate and distinct claims by different plaintiffs cannot be aggregated. Each plaintiff must independently satisfy the threshold unless supplemental jurisdiction applies under the rules established in Exxon Mobil.
The amount in controversy is one factor courts weigh when deciding whether requested discovery is proportional to the needs of the case under Rule 26(b)(1). Larger amounts generally support broader discovery while smaller amounts may justify limits.
No. Jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing. A later recovery below the threshold does not divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction but may affect the award of costs.
…"[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…