Also known as: diversity jurisdiction · 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An original jurisdiction of federal district courts over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity among all plaintiffs and defendants is required, and unincorporated associations take the citizenship of each member.
Fernando Farrell, a citizen of State A, sues Fusion Power, a limited partnership whose general partner resides in State A and whose limited partners reside in States B and C. The district court dismisses the action because Fusion Power is a citizen of every state in which any partner is a citizen, placing it on the same side of the diversity ledger as Farrell.
Freya Freeman, a citizen of State X, sues Fulton Shipping, a citizen of State Y, in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for a contract dispute governed by State X law. The court applies State X's statute of limitations rather than a federal rule because the state rule is outcome-determinative and must be followed to avoid forum shopping.
Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in that State. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation or maintenance of the train. He asserted that he was rightfully on the premises as a licensee because he was on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks. He further alleged that he was struck by something which looked like a door projecting from one of the moving cars. To enforce that claim he brought an action in the federal court for southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that State. The Erie insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser. It contended, among other things, that its duty to Tompkins, and hence its liability, should be determined in accordance with the Pennsylvania law; that under the law of Pennsylvania, as declared by its highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way are to be deemed trespassers; and that the railroad is not liable for injuries to undiscovered trespassers resulting from its negligence, unless it be wanton or wilful. Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established by the decisions of the Pennsylvania courts. He contended that, since there was no statute of the State on the subject, the railroad's duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law. The trial judge refused to rule that the Pennsylvania law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a verdict of $30,000. The judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the law of Pennsylvania was as contended, because the question was one not of local, but of general, law and that upon questions of general law the federal courts are free, in the absence of a local statute, to exercise their independent judgment as to what the law is. Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseFarah Fox, a citizen of State P, brings a negligence claim in federal court against Frostline Textiles, a citizen of State Q, after an accident in State P. The court looks to State P's duty-of-care standard and comparative-fault rules to decide the case rather than creating an independent federal common-law rule.
Harry Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in that State. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation or maintenance of the train. He also claimed that he was rightfully on the premises as a licensee because he was on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks. To enforce that claim he brought an action in the federal court for southern New York, which had jurisdiction because the company is a corporation of that State. The Erie Railroad Company denied liability, and the case was tried by a jury. The railroad insisted that its duty to Tompkins was no greater than that owed to a trespasser. It contended that under the law of Pennsylvania, as declared by its highest court, persons who use pathways along the railroad right of way are to be deemed trespassers. The railroad further contended that it is not liable for injuries to undiscovered trespassers resulting from its negligence unless the conduct is wanton or wilful. Tompkins denied that any such rule had been established by the decisions of the Pennsylvania courts. He contended that since there was no statute of the State on the subject, the railroad's duty and liability is to be determined in federal courts as a matter of general law. The trial judge refused to rule that Pennsylvania law precluded recovery. The jury brought in a verdict of $30,000, and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The Erie had contended that application of the Pennsylvania rule was required by section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. Because of the importance of the question whether the federal court was free to disregard the alleged rule of the Pennsylvania common law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseFabian Flynn, a citizen of State M, sues Falcon Dynamics, a citizen of State N, for $90,000 under diversity jurisdiction. Flynn adds two additional state-law claims against the same defendant that each fall below $75,000. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claims because they share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim.
In 1991, about 10,000 Exxon dealers filed a class-action suit against the Exxon Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. They alleged an intentional and systematic scheme by which they were overcharged for fuel purchased from Exxon. The plaintiffs invoked the District Court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Each dealer's claim was for slightly less than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. After a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the District Court certified the case for interlocutory review on the question of supplemental jurisdiction over class members who did not meet the jurisdictional minimum. In a separate action, a 9-year-old girl sued Star-Kist in a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. She sought damages for unusually severe injuries she received when she sliced her finger on a tuna can. Her family joined in the suit seeking damages for emotional distress and medical expenses. The District Court granted summary judgment to Star-Kist, finding that none of the plaintiffs met the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's extension of supplemental jurisdiction to the class members who did not meet the amount requirement. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the injured girl, but not her family members, had made allegations of damages in the requisite amount. It further held that section 1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction only when the district court has original jurisdiction over the action. In a diversity case, original jurisdiction is lacking if one plaintiff fails to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. The cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court.
View caseFaith Fitzgerald, a citizen of State R, sues Fusion Power in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Although State R requires a supersedeas bond for a stay pending appeal, the court applies the federal rule governing stays because the state bond requirement would unduly burden the federal appellate process.
Respondents brought this tort action in Alabama state court to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. Petitioner removed the case to a Federal District Court having diversity jurisdiction. A jury trial resulted in a judgment of $800,000 for respondent Alan Woods and $5,000 for respondent Cara Woods. Petitioner posted bond to stay the judgment pending appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed without modification. 768 F.2d 1287 (CA11 1985). Respondents then moved in the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Ala. Code § 12-22-72 (1986), for imposition of that State’s mandatory affirmance penalty of 10% of the amount of judgment. Petitioner challenged the application of this statute as violative of the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment and as “a procedural rule . . . inapplicable in federal court under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938) and its progeny.” The Court of Appeals summarily granted respondents’ motion to assess the penalty and subsequently denied a petition for rehearing. The parties have stipulated that the final judgment has been paid, except for the $30,500 statutory affirmance penalty, which petitioner has withheld pending proceedings in this Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the equal protection and due process challenges as well as the Erie claim. 475 U. S. 1080 (1986).
View caseFrancesca Fiore, a citizen of State S, files a diversity action in federal court against Fulton Shipping. State S precedent treats a particular equitable defense as unavailable after a certain point. The court refuses to apply a more lenient federal equitable doctrine because doing so would produce a different result than the identical suit litigated in State S court.
In May 1930 the Van Sweringen Corporation issued $30,000,000 in notes under an indenture naming Guaranty Trust Co. of New York as trustee with power to enforce noteholders' rights. In October 1930 Guaranty and other banks advanced large sums to companies affiliated with the Corporation and controlled by the Van Sweringens. When the Corporation could not meet its obligations, Guaranty participated in an exchange plan under which noteholders could surrender their notes for cash equal to 50 percent of face value plus twenty shares of Van Sweringen stock per $1,000 note; the offer remained open until December 15, 1931. In 1934 respondent York received $6,000 of the notes as a gift from a donor who had not accepted the exchange offer. In April 1940 three accepting noteholders filed the Hackner suit in federal court charging Guaranty with fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the exchange. York's motion to intervene was denied, and summary judgment for Guaranty was affirmed on appeal. On January 22, 1942, after her exclusion from the Hackner litigation, York filed the present class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of non-accepting noteholders. The complaint, resting exclusively on diversity of citizenship, alleged that Guaranty had breached its trust by failing to protect noteholders' interests when it assented to the exchange offer and by failing to disclose its own self-interest. The district court granted Guaranty's motion for summary judgment on the authority of the Hackner decision. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a federal court sitting in equity is not required to apply the New York statute of limitations that would govern an identical suit in the New York state courts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseEach partner or member is counted separately, so the entity is a citizen of every state in which any partner or member is a citizen. This prevents diversity jurisdiction when any member shares citizenship with an opposing party.
Supporting sources
A lawfully admitted permanent resident domiciled in a state is treated as a citizen of that state for diversity purposes. Suits between that resident and a citizen of the same state therefore lack complete diversity.
Supporting sources
A court may decline when the supplemental claims raise novel or complex state-law issues, substantially predominate over the original claim, or when the court has dismissed all claims supporting original jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
In a direct action against a liability insurer where the insured is not joined, the insurer is deemed a citizen of every state of which the insured is a citizen in addition to its own states of incorporation and principal place of business.
Supporting sources