Also known as: complete diversity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction mandating that every plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from every defendant.
Pilar Pena, a citizen of State A, sues Pinnacle Holdings, a citizen of State B, for $90,000 on a contract claim. She joins an additional state-law claim for $40,000 arising from the same transaction against the same defendant. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claim because perfect diversity already exists between the parties.
Patriot Insurance, a citizen of State A, interpleads claimants Phoebe Park from State B and Peter Park from State A over a single policy fund. The court permits the action under the interpleader statute even though one claimant shares citizenship with the stakeholder because only minimal diversity is required.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Preston Pratt, a citizen of State A, brings a Jones Act claim in federal court against a foreign shipowner and a New York stevedore company. The court dismisses the diversity count because the parties are not completely diverse but retains the admiralty claim on separate jurisdictional grounds.
Perry Pratt, a citizen of State A, sues Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, a citizen of State B, in federal court to compel arbitration of a construction dispute. The court finds perfect diversity satisfied and proceeds to decide whether to stay the parallel state action.
Every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. This rule flows directly from the interpretation of the diversity statute requiring complete diversity among all parties on opposing sides of the case.
Yes. An unincorporated association takes the citizenship of each of its members, so any member sharing citizenship with an opposing party destroys perfect diversity and defeats jurisdiction.
Once perfect diversity exists between the original parties and the amount-in-controversy requirement is met for at least one claim, supplemental jurisdiction may extend to additional claims by joined plaintiffs that fall below the jurisdictional amount if they share a common nucleus of operative fact.
…approach to other aspects of the jurisdictional statutes. For instance, we have consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district court of…