Also known as: diverse · diversity jurisdiction · diversity of citizenship
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction that exists when opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity must be present at the time the action is filed. The requirement ensures that federal courts may hear disputes between citizens of different states without regard to the merits of the underlying claim.
Diana Delgado, a citizen of State A, sues Dixon Foods, a corporation incorporated and headquartered in State B, in federal court for breach of a supply contract. At filing, complete diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars. Three weeks later Dixon Foods reincorporates in State A. The court retains jurisdiction because diversity is measured at the time the suit is instituted.
Devon Drake, a citizen of State C, files a diversity action in federal court in State D against Dominion Capital, a State E corporation, alleging breach of a loan agreement. The claim would be time-barred under State D's general statute of limitations but timely under its reliance-tolling rule. The court applies the state tolling rule because it is substantive for Erie purposes and outcome-determinative.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Deborah Dunn, a citizen of State F, brings a diversity class action in federal court against Drake Logistics, a State G corporation, seeking recovery of interest on overcharged shipping fees. A state statute would bar class treatment for such claims. The court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to decide certification because the rule governs procedure and does not abridge any substantive right.
Denise Donovan, a citizen of State H, sues Dillon Energy, a State I corporation, in federal court for negligence arising from a pipeline incident. The court must apply State H substantive tort rules, including any relevant statutes of limitations, rather than fashioning a general federal common law of torts.
Dorothy Daniels, a citizen of State J, files a diversity action in federal court against a State K school board alleging violation of her rights in a curriculum dispute. The court exercises jurisdiction only after confirming complete diversity and the requisite amount in controversy, while recognizing that certain constitutional claims may independently support federal-question jurisdiction.
Deanna Davenport, a citizen of State L, brings a diversity action in federal court against a State M healthcare provider concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The court applies State M substantive law to the underlying claim while exercising diversity jurisdiction because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is satisfied.
Diversity must exist at the time the suit is filed. Later changes in citizenship do not destroy jurisdiction once it has properly attached.
Statutes of limitations and related tolling rules are treated as substantive. The federal court must apply the forum state's rules when they are outcome-determinative.
No. Rule 23 governs class certification in diversity actions because it regulates procedure and does not abridge substantive rights under the Rules Enabling Act.
The federal court applies the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including choice-of-law rules, rather than any general federal common law.
…effect would be to shackle the First Amendment in its attempt to secure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U. S. 1, 20. To avoid placing such a handicap upon the freedoms of expression, we hold that if the allegedly libelous…