8 Amount in Controversy Limitation On Diversity Jurisdiction

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 serif;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 georgia;}{
\f6 Courier New;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid574975408\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levels
pace0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listi
d66737333}
d-831586228}
{\list\listtemplateid-1552161891\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\leve
lspace0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\lis
tid-2110171466}
{\list\listtemplateid1901523392\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\level
space0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\list
id-1814632829}
id48901706}
tid-1139674117}
d-1839121615}
tid72252653}
tid2021313888}
id1270239408}
d-945828385}
id275834682}
{\list\listtemplateid-451655927\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\level
id-1712221708}
d-1168350490}
d1790786689}
id-1565627785}
id293163434}
tid-1690689700}
d580280506}
id-802638795}
tid-74061753}
id2143709077}
tid23648403}
tid1977476873}
id-1136043980}
tid121134681}
tid-1990611209}
{\list\listtemplateid-51610349\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levels
d-2038909171}
id-1165198590}
id-1444099022}
id-1091005384}
tid-229140899}
tid-2097331744}
id-245132304}
id-1228822904}
id-207818341}
d1290044967}
d1908881189}
id-387986815}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid66737333\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
{\*\listoverride{\listid-831586228\listoverridecount0\ls2}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080 \headery72
0 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \b
rdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \b
rdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
8. Amount In Controversy Limitation On Diversity Jurisdiction, Cal. Prac. Guide
Fed....
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intb
l
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \
clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \
clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150 89504e470
d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445fffffff
ffdfbfffcf9fdfdfdfafafafffffefffcf8f6f6f6f3f3f3fffdfae2e2e2fff5e8fffaf3fff7ecffa
631bbbbbb7f7f7f7676766b6b6bffca849e9e9ef8f8f8ffbf6afffefdff9712fcfcfca4a4a496969
6ff9202ffb452fff5e6ff970dfefefeffad41e1e1e1ffe9cd949494ffe6c5fff6e96f6f6fffe6c6f
febd0fff1e0d2d2d2ffd399ff950efff9f2ff9f26fff3e3fff9f0ffd092fff2e1ffb555ffe7c7fff
3e4ff8500ffe0b8ffb6558b8b8bffce8dffebd1ff9408929292ffddb0ff9c19ff9811ffb95cfff8e
effecd3cccccc8e8e8effeed8ffa42d626262c9c9c9666666ffe2bcddddddfffbf7ffa32aff970ee
aeaea686868dadadaffab3a9a9a9a6d6d6effe8c9878787e3e3e3ff9f20f5f5f5b7b7b7efefef868
686ffc77cffe4c1ff9912ffc272ff93056c6c6cffeed7ffd296ffab3d818181ff930aff9e1effaf4
7fffbf5fff0dbff9100cfcfcfff930cffeacf7a7a7affcf90f7f7f7fbfbfbffa835ff9814ffa32ef
fe9cc676767ffc67afff2e2ffb048ff9509ffdbade0e0e0ffa939ffe5c3dcdcdcffc170ffe8cab3b
3b3ffb047f1f1f18c8c8cfffefeffecd4feedd7e8e8e8ffb656ffe2bbfff1df898989ff9b17ffcd8
affefdac3c3c3bdbdbdffe1baffc06cffa431fff7edf9f9f9ecececffaf44fff0dd787878ff9919d
9d9d9ff8f01ffd8a4727272737373e5e5e5ffe2bdffd9a7646464fffaf2ffdbab686b6effc172ffe
9caffe3c0ffdcafffc374ffc477ff981dfffdf9f5f4f2ffb34efff3e2ffe4bfff9e22ffa227fefdf
dffc578f1eae1ffeccf6a6a6bff9102ff9201ff9101fffcf775797e7c7c7cff9203dedede5d5d5d6
b6c6dffbb60ffbc62707070ffa42bffd49bff9f29ffb04affefdcfff7ebf2f2f2ff950af6f2eeffd
fb4696969ffd298ffddb2ff9916ffe1bcff9a0bffa128ffa329b0b0b0ff9d20ff9d23bfbfbfb4b4b
4ffb24bff9409ffd49c727375ffa62fffe3bedbdbdbb9b9b96a6a6a6e72776e6e6effaa39ffa024f
fa324fffefcfff4e5ff9c29ffb351ff9f2bffe3bc919191ff8d03ffa42eff8f02fffaf4fffaf5ff9
000ffa22b9843d85d000000097048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002f94944415478da6
33e95a6ba9b6145fce75b0c8c738f7e674000469effff94ef474d674003a271ebfb81141777f0656
46196999b9925be30c9143d6260ed71b36060d04fb444960f2b656160adb364c000f5698140d2396
b2d8aa8583d83c63757e6edfd8f8eb05c2aaa5af07572e68975da33e57731743dc9f30b5e7f2aaa7
a26b7d495df7e29d2e9b7dfae7b739fc159faf93fc67d39cf24d77b5c665067bcf487c39fe9d35fa
5ee4d0ca52f1c623803b74ebdc4747dc56606dd4927eee9306cd1fb9af989e9ee62d68d2c3d812bf
6b0787c946766906678f274bf5f95fb79a0cf1c1975189ce55e687e137eadc060f6eef732f9a267d
9ecca65920c4bf74edc55a9323d7e373343cd8aaf5bb927685c78e2c7fd756b72b7c4cde52fc2d64
e79bee2bfc8835d7c375efd4edefb60e7f4af6aff2eb19ee438d12a9075eff6f92d4a93e73a099c3
c6a5d2078ad74b7a2dbe55b1322f53608b77e616066d065babd73d7fbfedddedf9cf75dfb15fa826
d8d22efcb775ffe4c906afe23f6ebc7ef4382761ef2f14bbb27adcd79b8e0b7f6b1b2a2e2afcf56f
df35862567859239d71fe8be737ecfc03ff7dfcb2ea0b03d0b853bdc7f337ff3ac117579ba8f4496
fd59f5b3c17aee60845ef7c789bf7a5e217e1b7d6cf04ef4f17b9bf76eb937ce5ab562a522553eef
efcedf38d3175d3aa3dc5ff8b6fdcfdf76163ea7f063ed6770c20e3fe5b4a1dbef35754fe586ad41
99949b3167e7ff8f6997d6c6f8cc67df19b7c4b767cf9a3b9e7c9ec2fa72e4eb812de7ff7cccf49c
b3453b632dc15fac5cc7d67f12bf7947bffb9ae9b38ec6510fffe196cdcbfcf776c0e00d3c549a34
de5ef3ebd60e4fb94f76fbe3aefde93fa4f1ff3eb1dac3a96bc6d91afec8c4dcbf62de08cb8f8f65
95154ea4f86bffcb378a630fefc732cf2c674068b1ad675d3755245affe071ac7a0b1f5d01186af1
62577775c559338eb20bf37fba9e4b4036b3a6ae51edd3eb5a780e3fc5d0fd588fab5ea978318645
6dc3c75fb8bc86d0686f7ed2b0e04293cb0d9df59fee5c45bd5363115a309e5071800dbb45cde95f
0d3420000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \int
bl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{ \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec74e0e_Target}{\*\bkmkend I70ac9e60eb21
11da90bd8aaf6ec74e0e_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f5 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Cal. Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 2C-8
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, Calif. & 9th
Cir. Editions
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
William W Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima, and James M. Wagstaffe; Contributing Ed
itors: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, Hon. Gerald E. Rosen, Hon. Roslyn O. Silver, Hon
. Andrew J. Wistrich, Atty. Steven J. Adamski, Atty. Ivo Labar and Atty. Susan B
. Gray
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Chapter 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
C. Diversity Jurisdiction
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
}
{\li100 \f5 \b0 \ql \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \i0
8. Amount In Controversy Limitation On Diversity Jurisdiction
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1
\pnindent200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \f
s20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls1 {\pntext }
{\pard }\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls
2 \pnindent700 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0
\fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls2 {\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_OUT3_1" }{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
8. [2:1750] AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY Limitation on Diversity Jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}{\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls3 \pnindent1200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u16
0\'3f}}{\listtext \li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls3 {\
pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a. [2:1751] Matters included
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1752] Compensatory damages
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1753] Punitive damages:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1754] Claim closely scrutinized
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1755] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1756] Attorney fees:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1757] Compare\u8212\'3ffees recoverable as costs
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
60\'3f}}{\listtext \li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls10
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1758] Compare\u8212\'3ffees payable out of \u8220\'3fcommon fund\u8221\'3
f recovery
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1759] Compare\u8212\'3ffuture attorney fees?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1760] View not counting future fees
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1760.1] View counting future fees:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:1761] Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fprivate attorney general\u8221\'3f fees:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1765] Property interests
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1766] NOT including interest or costs
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:1768] NOT including accounting or discovery costs:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:1769] NOT including defendant\rquote s claims
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1770] Contra view:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1771] Comment:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
b. [2:1780] Exceeding $75,000
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
c. [2:1781] Measured at outset:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1782] Determined from complaint:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1783] General allegations sufficient:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1785] Compare\u8212\'3fnot sufficient for removal:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1786] Effect of exaggerated demands
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1796] Compare\u8212\'3factions removed from state court:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1797] Not affected by potential defenses:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1798] Compare\u8212\'3flimitations of liability
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1799] Not affected by subsequent reduction of demand
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1803] Not affected by ultimate recovery of lesser amount
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1804] Compare\u8212\'3fcosts penalty
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1806] Compare\u8212\'3frisk of sanctions
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1810] Not affected by insolvency:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:1811] Petition to compel arbitration or confirm award:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:1812] Petition to confirm or modify arbitration award:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
d. [2:1820] Limitation\u8212\'3fdamages \u8220\'3flegally impossible\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1821] Punitive damage claims subject to
}
{\f2 \b1 \chcbpat33 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
due
}
}
}
process
}
}
limits:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1823] Statutory damage limitations:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1826] Contractual limitations:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
e. [2:1835] \u8220\'3fValue\u8221\'3f of property or right
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1836] Property rights or interests
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1837] Future payments
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1838] Compare\u8212\'3fremoval jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1839] Rights of speculative value
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1841] Accounting:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1842] Declaratory relief re liability
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1845] Aggregation:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1850] Injunction cases\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fvalue\u8221\'3f of injunctive r
elief:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1851] Value to
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
either
}
}
plaintiff or defendant
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1852] Claims by multiple plaintiffs
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1853] Measuring cost to defendant
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:1854] Injunction to prevent continuing trespass:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1855] Value to plaintiff only:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1856] Measuring value:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a) [2:1857] Includes value of future protection:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1866] Limitation\u8212\'3finjunctive relief of speculative monetary value:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1867] Petition to compel arbitration
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1868] Compare\u8212\'3fpetition to confirm or vacate award:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
f. [2:1880] Procedure for determining amount in controversy
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1881] Burden of proof on motion:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1882] Compare\u8212\'3fremoval cases
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1883] Proof
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1884] Effect of factual disputes
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
g. [2:1885] Aggregation of claims to meet minimum amount
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1886] Claims by single plaintiff vs. single defendant
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1890] Subrogated claims:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1892] Effect of dismissing claim meeting minimum jurisdiction?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1893] Example:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1894] Comment:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:1895] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal question jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1900] Claims by single plaintiff vs. several defendants
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1901] Example
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1902] Compare\u8212\'3fseparate liability
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1903] Example
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1904] No supplemental jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1910] Claims by several plaintiffs vs. single defendant:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1911] Claims to \u8220\'3fundivided right\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcommon f
und\u8221\'3f:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1914] Separate claims against same defendant cannot be aggregated:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1917] Claims for punitive damages
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1918] Aggregation of claims in class actions
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1919] Where \u8220\'3fundivided right\u8221\'3f claimed
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1921] Compare\u8212\'3fCAFA minimum:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1922] Separate claims cannot be aggregated
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1924] Compare\u8212\'3fdefendant\rquote s cost of compliance
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1925] Attorney fee claims
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1930] Compare\u8212\'3fsupplemental jurisdiction where one claim meets ju
risdictional minimum
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1931] Claims arising out of same Article III case or controversy:
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_OUT3_1}{\*\bkmkend co_anchor_OUT3_1}
\par
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
8. [2:1750]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY Limitation on Diversity Jurisdiction:
}
}
Diversity jurisdiction exists only \u8220\'3fwhere the matter in controversy ex
ceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs . . .\u8221\'
3f (formerly $50,000). [
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?fin
dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=28USCAS1332&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf
6ec74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(a)
}}}
; see
}
dType=Y&serNum=2008499362&pubNum=0000708&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aa
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_1245&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=
cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_1245" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
}
}
(2006) 546 US 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1245
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3famount-in-controversy threshold an ingredient of subject-mat
ter jurisdiction\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The amount in controversy is simply an estimate of the total amount in dispute,
not a prospective assessment of defendant\rquote s liability. [
}
dType=Y&serNum=2023788224&pubNum=506&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6ec
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_400&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1
.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_400" }{\fldr
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lewis v. Verizon Communications, Inc
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 627 F3d 395, 400]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal question cases:
}
}
There is generally
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no monetary limit
}
}
in federal question cases (see
}
6ec74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1331
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:302
}
}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a. [2:1751]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Matters included:
}
}
The amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes is determined by the amou
nt of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
damages
}
}
or the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
value of the property
}
}
that is the subject of the action. [
}
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_708_2443&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt
1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_2443" }{\fl
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm\rquote n
}
}
(1977) 432 US 333, 347\u8211\'3f348, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2443\u8211\'3f2444;
}}}
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_1225&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs
=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_1225"
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Meisel v. Allstate Indem. Co.
}
}
(ED CA 2005) 357 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1225
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1752]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compensatory damages:
}
}
The amount in controversy may include compensatory damage claims for \u8220\'3f
general\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fspecial\u8221\'3f damages (pain and suffering, as
well as out-of-pocket loss).
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims for payments due by defendant
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
under contract
}
}
are also included in the amount in controversy calculation, even if \u8220\'3ft
hey do not fall comfortably within the realm of \u8216\'3fdamages\rquote and ar
e not labeled as such in the (complaint).\u8221\'3f [
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_701&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=c
blt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_701" }{\
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2007) 506 F3d 696, 701
}}}
(parentheses added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1753]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Punitive damages:
}
}
The amount in controversy may include punitive damages if (1) they are recoverab
le as a matter of state law and (2) it cannot be said to a legal certainty that
plaintiff would not be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Anthony v. Security Pac. Fin\rquote l Services, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1996) 75 F3d 311, 315;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Watson v. Blankinship
}
}
(10th Cir. 1994) 20 F3d 383, 386\u8211\'3f387;
}}}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenburg
}
}
(5th Cir. 1998) 134 F3d 1250, 1253\u8211\'3f1254
}}}
\u8212\'3fincludes statutory penalties for delayed settlement of valid claims]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1754]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claim closely scrutinized:
}
}
When a punitive damages claim makes up the bulk of the amount in controversy, t
he court will \u8220\'3fscrutinize that claim closely\u8221\'3f to be certain ju
risdiction exists. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 75 F3d at 315;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Packard v. Provident Nat\rquote l Bank
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1993) 994 F2d 1039, 1048]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1755]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
Courts increasingly view punitive damages claims with skepticism, especially if
asserted for the apparent purpose of meeting the jurisdictional minimum. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
State of Missouri ex rel. Pemiscot County, Mo. v. Western Sur. Co.
}
}
(8th Cir. 1995) 51 F3d 170, 173;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Miller v. European American Bank
}
}
(SD NY 1996) 921 F.Supp. 1162, 1167;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2011) 637 F3d 827, 831
}}}
\u8212\'3ffailure to plead punitive damages not fatal to their inclusion in amou
nt in controversy;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1821
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1756]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Attorney fees:
}
}
If attorney fees are recoverable by plaintiff (by statute or contract), the fee
claim is included in determining the amount in controversy, regardless whether t
he fee award is mandatory or discretionary. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia
}
}
(9th Cir. 1998) 142 F3d 1150, 1155\u8211\'3f1156;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 228 F3d 1255, 1265]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, when there is no direct legal authority for an attorney\rquot
e s fee, a request for a fee cannot be included in the computation of the jurisd
ictional amount. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia
}
}
, supra, 142 F3d at 1155]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1757]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffees recoverable as costs:
}
}
When a statute calls for an award of attorney fees as part of court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
costs
}
}
(rather than as part of damages), the rule that \u8220\'3finterests
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and costs
}
}
\u8221\'3f do not count toward the jurisdictional minimum (below) prevails. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Suber v. Chrysler Corp.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1997) 104 F3d 578, 588, fn. 12]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1758]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffees payable out of \u8220\'3fcommon fund\u8221\'3f recovery:
}
}
Many states recognize the common fund doctrine which allows a trial court to de
duct as attorney fees a reasonable percentage of a common fund that the attorney
s for the class representatives have obtained for distribution among the class.
A common fund attorney fee, however, does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
represent a \u8220\'3fsingle title or right\u8221\'3f of the plaintiffs and the
refore may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional amount. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Davis v. Carl Cannon Chevrolet\u8211\'3fOlds, Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 1999) 182 F3d 792, 796]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1759]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffuture attorney fees?
}
}
There is a split of authority whether future attorneys fees are included in cal
culating the amount in controversy:
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1760]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
View not counting future fees:
}
}
Some courts hold that since future legal expenses can be avoided by defendant\r
quote s prompt satisfaction of plaintiff\rquote s demand, they are not considere
d when assessing whether the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied when
the suit is filed. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gardynski-Leschuck v. Ford Motor Co.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1998) 142 F3d 955, 959
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fHatfields suing McCoys\u8221\'3f could run up $50,000 legal
fees in dispute over $10 garden rake, but that won\rquote t confer federal juris
diction]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1760.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
View counting future fees:
}
}
But other courts hold reasonably recoverable future attorneys fees are properly
considered in calculating the requisite amount in controversy. Rationale: Future
legal fees should count just as future damages. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Miera v. Dairyland Ins. Co.
}
}
(10th Cir. 1998) 143 F3d 1337, 1340;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2002) 276 F3d 720, 723;
}}}
}
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Feller v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
}
}
(SD IA 2010) 817 F.Supp.2d 1097, 1107
}}}
(collecting cases)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:1761]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fprivate attorney general\u8221\'3f fees:
}
}
A court could consider only the named plaintiff\rquote s share of the fees and n
ot those incurred on behalf of the general public when calculating the amount in
controversy for a private attorney general suit. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Zuckman v. Monster Beverage Corp.
}
}
(D DC 2013) F.Supp.2d,
}
74e0e&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
(2013 WL 3992932, *6)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1762\u8211\'3f1764]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1765]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Property interests:
}
}
In actions to enforce or protect an interest in property, the value of the prop
erty interest determines the amount in controversy.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1835 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1766]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
NOT including interest or costs:
}
}
The amount in controversy is determined without regardto accrued or accruing in
terest; or the costs of suit. [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_a83b000018c76" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(b)
}}}
; see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Juntunen
}
}
(7th Cir. 1988) 838 F2d 942, 943]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, for example, a $70,000 promissory note claim will not sustain federal juri
sdiction, even if the interest due brings the demand to more than $75,000. (But,
if the note permits attorney fees, a \u8220\'3fgood faith\u8221\'3f claim for $
10,000 attorney fees would allow federal jurisdiction.) [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Regan v. Marshall
}
}
(1st Cir. 1962) 309 F2d 677, 678]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1767]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:1768]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
NOT including accounting or discovery costs:
}
}
The costs a party may incur in proving or defending against a claim are not incl
uded in determining the amount in controversy. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2003) 351 F3d 636, 641
}}}
\u8212\'3fin action seeking equitable accounting for royalties allegedly due, th
e amount of which was unknown, the cost defendant may incur in performing the ac
counting could not be considered in determining amount in controversy]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:1769]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
NOT including defendant\rquote s claims:
}
}
The amount in controversy is determined without regard to any setoff or counter
claim to which defendant may be entitled. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1977) 561 F2d 787, 789;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ochoa v. Interbrew America, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1993) 999 F2d 626, 629
}}}
\u8212\'3fno reduction based on defendant\rquote s defenses]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, defendant\rquote s counterclaims (even if compulsory) do
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
reduce the amount of plaintiff\rquote s claims in determining the amount in con
troversy. (Conversely, a counterclaim for more than $75,000 does not establish f
ederal jurisdiction where the complaint fails to do so.)
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1770]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Contra view:
}
}
Some courts disagree, holding a defendant\rquote s compulsory counterclaim is pa
rt of the \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f for diversity jurisdiction p
urposes. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Spectacor Mgmt. Group v. Brown
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1997) 131 F3d 120, 121
}}}
\u8212\'3fby filing counterclaim for more than $75,000, defendant waived challen
ge based on insufficiency of amount sought in complaint]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1771]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
This view seems inconsistent with the notion that diversity jurisdiction is dete
rmined at commencement of the action, rather than by later developments in the a
ction (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1560
}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1772\u8211\'3f1779]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
b. [2:1780]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Exceeding $75,000:
}
}
The damages claimed must
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
exceed
}
}
$75,000 (i.e., an exact $75,000 is not sufficient). [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(a)
}}}
;
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Freeland v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2011) 632 F3d 250, 253]
}}}
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Where the action involves an interest in property or injunctive relief, the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
value
}
}
in controversy must exceed $75,000. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ronzio v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
}
}
(10th Cir. 1940) 116 F2d 604, 606
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1835 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
c. [2:1781]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Measured at outset:
}
}
Diversity jurisdiction must be ascertained at commencement of the action; later
events generally do not affect diversity jurisdiction. Thus, diversity jurisdict
ion exists if the complaint as filed puts more than $75,000 at issue. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Johnson v. Wattenbarger
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 361 F3d 991, 993]
}}}
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1782]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Determined from complaint:
}
}
The amount in controversy is determined from the allegations or prayer of the co
mplaint. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co
}
}
. (1938) 303 US 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590
}}}
\u8212\'3finability to recover an amount adequate to give court jurisdiction doe
s not show bad faith or oust court of jurisdiction]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1783]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
General allegations sufficient:
}
}
Plaintiffs need not itemize or show how they arrived at the amounts of damages c
laimed. A general conclusory allegation that the damages exceed the minimum juri
sdictional limit is usually sufficient.
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1784]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FORM:
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fThe matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, th
e sum of Seventy\u8211\'3fFive Thousand Dollars.\u8221\'3f [See FRCP Official Fo
rm 2]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1785]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fnot sufficient for removal:
}
}
Such a general allegation without factual allegation in a notice of removal base
d on diversity might not be sufficient where the amount in controversy is disput
ed or uncertain.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3435 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1786]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of exaggerated demands:
}
}
Courts may dismiss where the amount alleged is in \u8220\'3fbad faith\u8221\'3f
\u8212\'3fi.e., solely to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction: \u8220\'3fWhile
a federal court must of course give due credit to the good faith claims of the
plaintiff, a court would be remiss in its obligations if it accepted every claim
of damages at face value, no matter how trivial the underlying injury.\u8221\'3
f [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Diefenthal v. C.A.B.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1982) 681 F2d 1039, 1052;
}}}
see also
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 1996) 75 F3d 311, 318;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co
}
}
. (11th Cir. 2000) 228 F3d 1255, 1272]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In other words, claims made in subjective good faith should be dismissed if they
lack \u8220\'3fobjective good faith\u8221\'3f\u8212\'3fi.e., no one familiar wi
th the law could reasonably conclude the claim can meet the jurisdictional amoun
t. [
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_4&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_4" }{\fldr
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Esquil\u237\'3fn-Mendoza v. Don King Productions, Inc.
}
}
(1st Cir. 2011) 638 F3d 1, 4
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1787] Passenger claimed general and punitive damages exceeding the
jurisdictional minimum for anger and embarrassment suffered from discourteous c
onduct by Airline employees. Dismissal was upheld because \u8220\'3f(i)t is clea
r to a legal certainty that appellant\rquote s unliquidated tort claim could not
sustain a judgment of over (the jurisdictional minimum).\u8221\'3f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Christensen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1980) 633 F2d 529, 530\u8211\'3f531
}}}
(parentheses added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1788] P\rquote s suit for $1 million was dismissed despite her app
arent good faith belief in the allegations regarding a wrongful car seizure. The
amount sought was almost entirely based on emotional damages, because she conce
ded that rental costs for another vehicle were no more than $22,500, and an exam
ination of her claims and concessions made it clear to a legal certainty that sh
e could not recover the jurisdictional minimum. [
}
f6ec74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_5&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_5" }{\fldr
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Esquil\u237\'3fn-Mendoza v. Don King Productions, Inc.
}
}
, supra, 638 F3d at 5
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1789\u8211\'3f1794]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1795]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER:
}
}
}
Be careful about exaggerating the amount in controversy. In addition to jurisdic
tional problems, exaggerated demands may expose the pleader to the risk of sanct
ions for violation of
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR11&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 11
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1806
}
}
).
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1796]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3factions removed from state court:
}
}
Federal courts may be more willing to take damages claims at face value in actio
ns removed from state court. Usually, these are cases in which no jurisdictional
minimum was required in the state court, and therefore plaintiff had no reason
to inflate his or her damages claims in the complaint. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Albright v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co
}
}
. (3rd Cir. 1976) 531 F2d 132, 135;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co
}
}
. (11th Cir. 1994) 31 F3d 1092, 1095;
}}}
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_fcf30000ea9c4" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1446(c)(2)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1797]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Not affected by potential defenses:
}
}
Potential defenses to all or part of the claim do
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
affect the amount in controversy\u8212\'3feven if disclosed on the face of the
complaint (e.g., potential statute of limitations defense). Reason: Defendant ma
y not raise the defense; even if raised, the defense may be shown to be invalid.
[See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.
}
}
(1938) 303 US 283, 295\u8211\'3f296, 58 S.Ct. 586, 593\u8211\'3f594;
}}}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Riggins v. Riggins
}
}
(9th Cir. 1969) 415 F2d 1259, 1261\u8211\'3f1262
}}}
\u8212\'3fthat statute of limitations defense might bar portion of relief sought
did not affect amount in controversy;
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of U.S.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2003) 347 F3d 394, 398
}}}
\u8212\'3fthat collateral estoppel doctrine might bar portion of relief sought d
id not reduce amount in controversy]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1797.1] Travel Company moved to compel arbitration of a claim agai
nst it for Customer\rquote s wrongful death for which damages would likely excee
d $75,000. Customer\rquote s contract with Travel Company limited its liability
to $16,831. This potential defense did not preclude federal jurisdiction because
there was no certainty the defense would be successful (e.g., the damages cap m
ay be unconscionable). [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka
}
}
(9th Cir. 2010) 599 F3d 1102, 1108]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1797.2\u8211\'3f1797.4]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1798]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3flimitations of liability:
}
}
The result may be different where the defense is based on a contract provision (
or state statute) limiting defendant\rquote s liability to less than the jurisdi
ctional amount. Several cases hold the district court may go
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
beyond the pleadings
}
}
for the limited purpose of determining the applicable measure of damages and ma
y dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1821 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1799]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Not affected by subsequent reduction of demand:
}
}
The amount in controversy is determined at the time the action is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
commenced
}
}
. Subsequent amendments to the complaint, or dismissal of certain claims, reduci
ng the demand to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
below
}
}
$75,000 do not ordinarily oust diversity jurisdiction\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
as long as the original demand was made in \u8220\'3fgood faith\u8221\'3f
}
}
(below). [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
}
}
supra;
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Watson v. Blankinship
}
}
(10th Cir. 1994) 20 F3d 383, 387]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1800] P sued for royalties exceeding $10,000 (former jurisdictiona
l minimum). In the course of discovery, the correct amount due was determined to
be less than that amount. Notwithstanding, there was federal jurisdiction becau
se P\rquote s original claim was for more than the jurisdictional minimum and ha
d been asserted in good faith. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lewis v. Cook
}
}
(6th Cir. 1969) 409 F2d 619, 620]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1801] Former Employee sued Employer for wrongful termination plus
amounts owing for back pay, vacation pay, etc. All claims, when aggregated, sati
sfied the amount in controversy requirement. Employer obtained summary judgment
on the wrongful termination claim. The amount in controversy on the remaining cl
aims was less than $75,000. This did not affect the district court\rquote s dive
rsity jurisdiction; the time-of-filing test applied. [
}
74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_63&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.
0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_63" }{\fldrsl
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1999) 166 F3d 59, 63;
}}}
but see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Stevenson v. Severs
}
}
(DC Cir. 1998) 158 F3d 1332, 1334
}}}
\u8212\'3fremaining claims for less than $75,000 were within \u8220\'3fsupplemen
tal jurisdiction\u8221\'3f so that court could
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
decline
}
}
jurisdiction]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1802] Contractor sued Homeowner on various claims exceeding $75,00
0. After discovery, the court dismissed several of the claims for lack of merit.
Although the remaining claims were for less than $75,000, it was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
error
}
}
to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional amount. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 361 F3d 991, 993]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1803]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Not affected by ultimate recovery of lesser amount:
}
}
Likewise, as long as the amount demanded in the complaint was asserted in \u822
0\'3fgood faith,\u8221\'3f the court is not ousted of diversity jurisdiction sim
ply because the amount finally recovered by the plaintiff fails to exceed $75,00
0. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.
}
}
, supra; see
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Shierk
}
}
(7th Cir. 1997) 121 F3d 1114, 1117;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Choice Hotels Int\rquote l, Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, L.L.C.
}
}
(4th Cir. 2007) 491 F3d 171, 176
}}}
\u8212\'3fwhere action stayed and arbitration ordered, court had jurisdiction to
confirm arbitration award for less than $75,000 because original claim for reli
ef exceeded that amount]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1804]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fcosts penalty:
}
}
However, if the judgment is for less than $75,000\u8212\'3fcomputed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
without regard to any set-off or counterclaim
}
}
to which defendant is entitled, and exclusive of interest or costs\u8212\'3fthe
court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
may deny
}
}
plaintiff costs to which he or she would otherwise be entitled; and, in additio
n, it may impose costs
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
against
}
}
plaintiff. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(b)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1805]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
This is really not much of a deterrent to inflated claims. First of all, it is
only
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discretionary
}
}
with the trial judge. Many judges are reluctant to \u8220\'3frub salt\u8221\'3f
in plaintiff\rquote s wounds after he or she has lost the case (unless it is ob
vious that plaintiff was not acting in good faith when making the original deman
d). Moreover, even if the penalty is imposed, the amount of costs is usually not
all that significant.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1806]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3frisk of sanctions:
}
}
A much more potent penalty for exaggerated demands is the risk of sanctions und
er
}
FRCP 11
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see Ch. 17, Sanctions
}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1807\u8211\'3f1809]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1810]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Not affected by insolvency:
}
}
A defendant\rquote s solvency to satisfy a judgment in excess of $75,000 is not
a consideration under the diversity statute. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
We Care Hair Develop., Inc. v. Engen
}
}
(7th Cir. 1999) 180 F3d 838, 841]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(6) [2:1811]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Petition to compel arbitration or confirm award:
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:62 ff.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(7) [2:1812]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Petition to confirm or modify arbitration award:
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:62.5.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1813\u8211\'3f1819]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
d. [2:1820]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3fdamages \u8220\'3flegally impossible\u8221\'3f:
}
}
A dismissal for lack of jurisdictional amount is proper if it was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
legally
}
}
impossible for plaintiffs to recover on their damage theories when the case was
filed. To justify such dismissal, \u8220\'3f(i)t must appear to a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
legal certainty
}
}
that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount . . .\u8221\'3
f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co
}
}
. (1938) 303 US 283, 288\u8211\'3f289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590
}}}
(emphasis added);
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Charvat v. GVN Michigan, Inc.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2009) 561 F3d 623, 627]
}}}
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Courts may look
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
beyond the pleadings
}
}
for the limited purpose of determining whether it is \u8220\'3flegally impossib
le\u8221\'3f for plaintiffs to recover the damages alleged. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel\u8211\'3fLas Vegas, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1986) 802 F2d 362, 364]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A demand is \u8220\'3flegally impossible\u8221\'3f for jurisdictional purposes w
hen it runs up against a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
statutory or contractual cap
}
}
on damages, or when the theories of damages employ double counting. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 361 F3d 991, 994]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1821]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Punitive damage claims subject to
}
due
}
}
}
process
}
}
limits:
}
}
Due
}
}
}
process
}
}
guidelines limit the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages that may
be awarded. In simple
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
economic loss
}
}
cases, few awards exceeding a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
9 to 1 ratio
}
}
satisfy
}
due
}
}
}
process
}
}
. [See
}
74e0e&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell
}
}
(2003) 538 US 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1822] Thus, in a bad faith case against an insurance company for a
ttorney fees of $3,330, plus punitive damages, the amount in controversy could n
ot exceed the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Munro v. Golden Rule Ins. Co.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 393 F3d 720, 721]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1823]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statutory damage limitations:
}
}
It may be \u8220\'3flegally impossible\u8221\'3f for plaintiffs to recover the j
urisdictional minimum, and dismissal therefore required, where the damage claims
are limited by statute to a lesser amount. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Charvat v. GVN Michigan, Inc.
}
}
, supra, 561 F3d at 629\u8211\'3f630
}}}
(dealing with damage limits under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (
}
dType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=47USCAS227&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6
ec74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
47 USC \u167\'3f 227(c)
}}}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1824] P sued Hotel for jewelry loss that exceeded the minimum requ
ired for diversity jurisdiction. But state innkeeper statute limited Hotel\rquot
e s liability to $750. Dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction was upheld.
[
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel\u8211\'3fLas Vegas, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1986) 802 F2d 362, 364;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kahn v. Hotel Ramada of Nevada
}
}
(5th Cir. 1986) 799 F2d 199, 203]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1825] P sued to recover a locomotive worth more than the jurisdict
ional minimum that allegedly had been wrongfully converted. However, D had retur
ned the locomotive prior to commencement of the action. Under state law, P was o
nly entitled to nominal damages, clearly below the jurisdictional minimum. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Indiana Hi\u8211\'3fRail Corp. v. Decatur Junction Ry. Co.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1994) 37 F3d 363, 366]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1826]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Contractual limitations:
}
}
Dismissal may be upheld where defendant\rquote s liability is limited by contrac
t to an amount less than the diversity minimum, if the court determines that suc
h limitation is valid and enforceable. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Assocs., Inc.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1995) 44 F3d 195, 209]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1827] Engineer was hired by Purchaser of property to assess enviro
nmental risks. The contract contained an enforceable clause limiting Engineer\rq
uote s liability to $5,000. Engineer failed to discover two underground storage
tanks containing hazardous chemicals requiring $90,000 clean-up. Purchaser\rquot
e s damage action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of the contract
ual limit on its liability. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pratt Central Park Ltd. Partnership v. Dames & Moore, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1995) 60 F3d 350, 353\u8211\'3f354]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1828\u8211\'3f1834]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
e. [2:1835]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fValue\u8221\'3f of property or right:
}
}
Where the lawsuit seeks specific relief (other than money damages) the value of
the \u8220\'3fmatter in controversy\u8221\'3f must exceed $75,000. [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(a)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1836]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Property rights or interests:
}
}
Where plaintiff sues to enforce or protect an interest in property, the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
present value
}
}
of that interest must exceed $75,000.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1837]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Future payments:
}
}
In an action involving monies due in the future (e.g., installment contracts, a
nnuity payments, etc.), presently owed and unconditional future payments may be
included in computing the amount in controversy. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Flowers
}
}
(1947) 330 US 464, 467, 67 S.Ct. 798, 800;
}}}
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Williams v. Aetna Cas. Co.
}
}
(D MD 1980) 487 F.Supp. 44, 45]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
For example, where the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
validity
}
}
of a disability insurance policy is involved (as opposed to a dispute as to the
extent of benefits), future potential benefits are considered in determining th
e amount in controversy. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co. v. Harmon
}
}
(6th Cir. 1996) 88 F3d 415, 416
}}}
\u8212\'3finsurer sued to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
rescind for fraud
}
}
policy providing benefits exceeding jurisdictional minimum although insured\rqu
ote s claim was for only $890.26]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
As long as there is no uncertainty as to the right to collect, the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
present value
}
}
of the future installments determines the amount in controversy. [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sarnoff v. American Home Products Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1986) 798 F2d 1075, 1078]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1838]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fremoval jurisdiction:
}
}
Additional installments accrued
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after
}
}
commencement of the action, but
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
prior to removal
}
}
, may be considered for removal jurisdiction. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Journal Publishing Co. v. General Cas. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1954) 210 F2d 202, 204]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1839]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rights of speculative value:
}
}
Occasionally, plaintiff claims a right so intangible that its value is entirely
speculative. In such cases, diversity jurisdiction will not lie for lack of jur
isdictional amount. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jackson v. American Bar Ass\rquote n
}
}
(9th Cir. 1976) 538 F2d 829, 831]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1840] Student at unaccredited law school sued to enjoin Bar Associ
ation from distinguishing between graduates of accredited vs. nonaccredited law
schools in membership category. But the distinction had no present effect on Stu
dent, who had not yet graduated. Since the right in question was intangible, and
at best speculative, it did not satisfy the \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u82
21\'3f requirement for diversity jurisdiction. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Jackson v. American Bar Ass\rquote n,
}
}
supra]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1841]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Accounting:
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Unless it also features a demand for damages or restitution, or the amount in qu
estion indisputably exceeds $75,000,
}
}
a suit for an accounting does not fall within diversity jurisdiction because th
e \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f is indeterminable. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DiTolla v. Doral Dental IPA of New York, LLC
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2006) 469 F3d 271, 277
}}}
\u8212\'3fwhether accounting would establish minimum amount in controversy was \
u8220\'3fmere speculation\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1842]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Declaratory relief re liability:
}
}
Where plaintiff seeks a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
determination of liability
}
}
under a contract, the potential liability is the \u8220\'3famount in controvers
y.\u8221\'3f It makes no difference that the plaintiff is suing for determinatio
n that he or she owes nothing! [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm\rquote n
}
}
(1977) 432 US 333, 347, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2443;
}}}
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1994) 39 F3d 61, 65\u8211\'3f66]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1843] P sues for declaratory relief that it owes
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nothing
}
}
under a contract under which its potential liability exceeds the jurisdictional
minimum. The \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f limitation is met. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
}
}
(1961) 367 US 348, 353\u8211\'3f354, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 1573\u8211\'3f1574]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1844] Insurance Co. sued Insured for declaratory relief that Third
Parties\rquote claims against Insured were not covered by its liability insura
nce policy. The policy had $1 million limits but Third Parties\rquote claims we
re only $261. The jurisdictional amount in controversy was the value of the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
claims
}
}
against Insured, not the face amount of the policy. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou\u8211\'3fCon Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2002) 293 F3d 908, 911;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Meridian Secur. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski
}
}
(7th Cir. 2006) 441 F3d 536, 539
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
potential indemnity obligation
}
}
determines \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3frescission of policy:
}
}
On the other hand, where the insurance company seeks to invalidate the entire i
nsurance contract (e.g., for fraud or nonpayment of premiums), the policy limits
establish the amount in controversy. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou\u8211\'3fCon Inc.
}
}
, supra, 293 F3d at 911]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1845]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Aggregation:
}
}
A declaratory judgment plaintiff may reach the jurisdictional amount by aggregat
ing multiple claims against a single defendant. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Budget Rent\u8211\'3fA\u8211\'3fCar, Inc. v. Higashiguchi
}
}
(9th Cir. 1997) 109 F3d 1471, 1474
}}}
\u8212\'3finsurer seeking declaration of noncoverage could aggregate several sep
arate claims against its insured]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1846\u8211\'3f1849]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1850]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Injunction cases\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fvalue\u8221\'3f of injunctive relief:
}
}
Where plaintiff seeks equitable relief, the pecuniary value of the relief sought
may be minimal to plaintiff but costly to the defendant. (For example, P sues t
o enjoin operation of D\rquote s factory as a nuisance because it emits fumes an
d smoke onto P\rquote s property; assume the value of a clean air flow is less t
han $75,000 but the cost of controlling the emissions would be millions of dolla
rs.)
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Courts disagree on the approach for determining the amount in controversy in suc
h cases:
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1851]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Value to
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
either
}
}
plaintiff or defendant:
}
}
A number of courts hold the \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f requireme
nt is satisfied where
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
either
}
}
plaintiff can gain or defendant can lose the jurisdictional amount. (In practic
e, this approach focuses mostly on the cost to the defendant.) [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1997) 123 F3d 599, 609;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (So. Dakota), N.A.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 264 F3d 952,958
}}}
;
}
}{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Simmons v. PCR Tech.
}
}
(ND CA 2002) 209 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1033
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1852]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims by multiple plaintiffs:
}
}
Where multiple plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, each plaintiff\rquote s claim
must be analyzed separately. The \u8220\'3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f is t
he
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
cost to each defendant
}
}
of an injunction running in favor of one plaintiff (otherwise, the nonaggregati
on rule would be violated). [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 123 F3d at 609;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (So. Dakota), N.A.
}
}
, supra, 264 F3d at 959]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fclass actions:
}
}
But the value of injunctive relief sought in a class action cannot be determine
d by examining its potential cost to the defendant. Rather, the amount in contro
versy depends upon the nature and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
value of each class member\rquote s separate claim
}
}
(which includes the right to be protected from future harm); and if that claim\
rquote s value is less than the jurisdictional amount, there is no diversity jur
isdiction. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kanter v. Warner\u8211\'3fLambert Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 265 F3d 853, 859]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1853]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Measuring cost to defendant:
}
}
The cost to the defendant may include:
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
costs of compliance
}
}
(including internal clerical and ministerial costs); and
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
lost benefits
}
}
(e.g., where suit asks that defendant be enjoined from completing a lucrative t
ransaction). [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 123 F3d at 610]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3) [2:1854]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Injunction to prevent continuing trespass:
}
}
In determining the jurisdictional amount in a suit to enjoin the continuing tres
pass on one\rquote s land, \u8220\'3fit is only the value to the part of land th
at will be destroyed without the injunction that is considered; the total value
of the property is measured only if the entire value of plaintiff\rquote s prope
rty will be protected by the injunction.\u8221\'3f [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
James Neff Kramper Family Farm Partnership v. IBP, Inc.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2005) 393 F3d 828, 833
}}}
(internal quotes omitted)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1855]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Value to plaintiff only:
}
}
Some courts hold the amount in controversy in injunction cases is measured
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
exclusively
}
}
by the value of the right asserted by plaintiff. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 204 F3d 1069, 1077;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Burns v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(8th Cir. 1987) 820 F2d 246, 248;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Snow v. Ford Motor Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1977) 561 F2d 787, 790]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1856]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Measuring value:
}
}
The value to plaintiff includes:
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3fthe value of property sought to be protected or preserved; and
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8212\'3fcosts savings obtained by anticipated cessation of defendant\rquote s
conduct. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 1997) 123 F3d 599, 609]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
a) [2:1857]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Includes value of future protection:
}
}
Where the suit seeks both present and future injunctive relief (e.g., order abat
ing nuisance and restraining defendant from any future recurrence), the \u8220\'
3famount in controversy\u8221\'3f includes the value of such protection, now and
in the future. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1995) 62 F3d 538, 542]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1858\u8211\'3f1865]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1866]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3finjunctive relief of speculative monetary value:
}
}
Potential benefits from an injunction do not count \u8220\'3fwhere they are so u
ncertain that the court cannot reasonably determine whether the amount of money
placed in controversy by the present suit exceeds $75,000.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 228 F3d 1255, 1269
}}}
\u8212\'3fmere speculation whether any class member will benefit monetarily, and
if so to what extent, from an injunction requiring defendants to pay future cla
ims not sufficient]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1867]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Petition to compel arbitration:
}
}
In proceedings to compel arbitration, most courts determine the amount in contr
oversy for diversity jurisdiction purposes by the potential amount of the arbitr
ation award. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Doctor\rquote s Assocs., Inc. v. Hamilton
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1998) 150 F3d 157, 160;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Webb v. Investacorp, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1996) 89 F3d 252, 256]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This requires the court to consider the value of not merely the claims at issue
in arbitration, but rather the \u8220\'3ffull-bodied controversy\u8221\'3f as st
ated in plaintiff\rquote s complaint. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Goodner
}
}
(8th Cir. 2013) 729 F3d 832, 834
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt must consider worth of class action claim to unnamed class membe
rs, even though those claims were not subject to arbitration]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1868]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fpetition to confirm or vacate award:
}
}
Where an arbitration award has been made, the amount in controversy is the amoun
t of the award unless plaintiff is seeking to reopen the arbitration. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown & Bain
}
}
(9th Cir. 2005) 400 F3d 659, 664\u8211\'3f665;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
America\rquote s MoneyLine, Inc. v. Coleman
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 360 F3d 782, 785\u8211\'3f786;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Peebles v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
}
}
(11th Cir. 2005) 431 F3d 1320, 1325]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer: See detailed discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
16:62.3.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1869\u8211\'3f1879]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
f. [2:1880]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Procedure for determining amount in controversy:
}
}
Typically, the party seeking to challenge the amount in controversy makes a mot
ion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of the case
. [
}
FRCP 12(b)(1)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
9:85 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1881]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Burden of proof on motion:
}
}
If defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the burden of proof is n
ormally on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
plaintiff
}
}
(party invoking federal jurisdiction) to establish a \u8220\'3fgood faith\u8221
\'3f expectation of recovery of at least the minimum jurisdictional amount. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
McNutt v. General Motors Accept. Corp
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
of Indiana
}
}
(1936) 298 US 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Meridian Secur. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski
}
}
(7th Cir. 2006) 441 F3d 536, 543
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
preponderance of evidence
}
}
sufficient]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1882]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
removal
}
}
}
cases:
}
}
Where plaintiff\rquote s state court complaint alleges damages less than $75,00
0, and defendant removes to
}
federal
}
}
}
}
court
}
}
}
, defendant (party invoking federal jurisdiction) must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that plaintiff will recover more than $75,000 if successful. [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_5ef30000a42f1" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1446(c)(2)(B)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3245 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1883]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Proof:
}
}
Affidavits are admissible to establish particular elements of damages or the va
lue of the property involved. In appropriate cases, discovery may be utilized to
amplify the allegations of the complaint. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
McMillian v. Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers
}
}
(7th Cir. 2009) 567 F3d 839, 844\u8211\'3f845]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1884]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of factual disputes:
}
}
If factual questions exist as to the amount in controversy, the court can permi
t discovery and decide the matter pursuant to a motion for summary judgment or e
ven by court trial if necessary. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pratt Central Park Ltd. Partnership v. Dames & Moore, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1995) 60 F3d 350, 353\u8211\'3f354;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Assocs., Inc.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1995) 44 F3d 195, 209;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and discussion at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
9:85 ff
}
}
.]
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
g. [2:1885]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Aggregation of claims to meet minimum amount:
}
}
Whether separate claims for less than $75,000 can be aggregated to meet the jur
isdictional minimum in diversity cases depends on the number of parties involved
and the nature of the liability asserted:
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(1) [2:1886]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims by single plaintiff vs. single defendant:
}
}
In an action by a single plaintiff against a single defendant,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all
}
}
claims\u8212\'3fincluding unrelated claims\u8212\'3fcan be aggregated to meet t
he minimum jurisdictional amount. [
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Community Services, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1999) 166 F3d 59, 62;
}}}
see
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bank of Calif. Nat\rquote l Ass\rquote n v. Twin Harbors Lumber Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1972) 465 F2d 489, 491;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Carroll v. Stryker Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2011) 658 F3d 675, 681\u8211\'3f682]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1887] P has a $65,000 promissory note claim and a $12,000 property
damage claim against D. The two claims (although totally unrelated) can be join
ed in the same diversity action and aggregated to meet the jurisdictional minimu
m.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1888\u8211\'3f1889]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1890]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Subrogated claims:
}
}
An insurer that pays its insured for a loss caused by a third party is subrogate
d to its insured\rquote s claims against that party and may sue thereon as the r
eal party in interest (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
7:13
}
}
). Where the insurer pays several insureds for losses caused by the same defenda
nt, the amount of their claims may be aggregated to reach the jurisdictional min
imum. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hechinger Co.
}
}
(ED VA 1997) 982 F.Supp. 1169, 1172;
}}}
see also
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tel\u8211\'3fMor Garage Corp.
}
}
(SD NY 1950) 92 F.Supp. 445, 446]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1891] Insurance Co. paid for fire losses suffered by two separate
policyholders caused by Manufacturer\rquote s defective product. Suing as subrog
ee of its policyholders\rquote claims against Manufacturer, Insurance Co. could
combine the amount of the claims to reach the diversity jurisdiction threshold.
[
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hechinger Co.
}
}
, supra, 982 F.Supp. at 1172]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1892]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of dismissing claim meeting minimum jurisdiction?
}
}
Where plaintiff asserts transactionally-related claims, and some of them are di
smissed leaving only claims for less than the jurisdictional minimum, some court
s recognize supplemental jurisdiction (
}
6ec74e0e&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1367
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:2018
}
}
). [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shanaghan v. Cahill
}
}
(4th Cir. 1995) 58 F3d 106, 111]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1893]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
In a diversity action, Lender sues Borrowers on three separate loans totaling mo
re than $75,000. After dismissing the claim on one of the loans, the remaining c
laims were for less than the jurisdictional minimum. The court could properly ex
ercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the remaining claims. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Shanaghan v. Cahill
}
}
, supra]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1894]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
The practical effect is that if the jurisdictional minimum is established at the
outset of the suit, diversity jurisdiction is not lost because of subsequent de
velopments in the case reducing the amount in controversy (e.g., dismissal of so
me of the claims or parties).
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(d) [2:1895]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal question jurisdiction:
}
}
Although no jurisdictional amount is required for general federal question juri
sdiction (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:302
}
}
), some statutes still require a certain minimum amount in controversy (\u182\'3
f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:303 ff.
}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Under such statutes, several
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
federal
}
}
claims may be aggregated to meet the minimum. But a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nonfederal
}
}
claim cannot be counted . . . even if it arises out of the same transaction as
the federal claim. [
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hunter v. United Van Lines
}
}
(9th Cir. 1984) 746 F2d 635, 652
}}}
\u8212\'3fstate bad faith claim against interstate carrier could not be aggregat
ed with federal claim for damages to goods in interstate transit]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1896\u8211\'3f1899]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2) [2:1900]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims by single plaintiff vs. several defendants:
}
}
Whether a single plaintiff\rquote s claims against several defendants can be ag
gregated for jurisdictional purposes depends on whether the defendants are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
jointly liable
}
}
to the plaintiff on each claim. [
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sovereign Camp Woodmen v. O\rquote Neill
}
}
(1924) 266 US 292, 297\u8211\'3f298, 45 S.Ct. 49, 50\u8211\'3f51;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City Nat\rquote l Bank
}
}
(9th Cir. 1978) 592 F2d 504, 509]
}}}
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1901]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
P sues D1, D2 and D3 alleging that each has damaged him by $30,000 in separate
transactions, but that all three
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
acted in conspiracy
}
}
. The allegations of conspiracy \u8220\'3ftie the defendants together\u8221\'3f
for liability purposes so that aggregation of claims is allowed. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Sovereign Camp Woodmen v. O\rquote Neill
}
}
, supra; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hayfield v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
}
}
(ED PA 2001) 168 F.Supp.2d 436, 452
}}}
\u8212\'3faggregation proper where defendants, acting separately, cause \u8220\'
3findivisible injury\u8221\'3f to plaintiff]
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1902]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fseparate liability:
}
}
But if the liability alleged is separate, rather than joint, aggregation is not
permitted ... even if the claims arise out of the same transaction (so that joi
nder would be permissible for pleading purposes; see
}
c74e0e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
FRCP 20(a)
}}}
). [See
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1961) 290 F2d 11, 13]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1903]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Example:
}
}
P sued four different insurance carriers for a loss exceeding the jurisdictiona
l minimum. An agent of the four carriers had bound them to a single insurance po
licy, with each company separately assuming one-fourth of the obligation. Since
each defendant\rquote s liability was separate, the claims could
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
be aggregated\u8212\'3feven though they arose out of the same policy and same l
oss! [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ex Parte Phoenix Ins. Co.
}
}
(1886) 117 US 367, 369, 6 S.Ct. 772, 772]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1904]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No supplemental jurisdiction:
}
}
When original jurisdiction is based only on diversity, the court may not exerci
se supplemental jurisdiction over a codefendant unless the claim against that de
fendant also meets the jurisdictional requirements of the diversity statute. [Se
e
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1367(b)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1949
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1905] Janitorial Service entered into separate contracts with four
different entities that owned various portions of the same property. Janitorial
Service\rquote s claim against one of these entities for more than the federal
jurisdictional minimum could
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
support supplemental jurisdiction over claims for lesser amounts against the ot
her entities. [
}
dType=Y&serNum=1998138641&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_1030&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb
lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_1030" }{
\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
American Bldg. Maint. Co. v. 1000 Water Street Condominium Ass\rquote n
}
}
(ED WI 1998) 9 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1030\u8211\'3f1031]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1906\u8211\'3f1909]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(3) [2:1910]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims by several plaintiffs vs. single defendant:
}
}
Whether aggregation is permitted of several plaintiffs\rquote claims against th
e same defendant depends on the nature of the claims asserted:
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1911]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims to \u8220\'3fundivided right\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcommon fund\u8221\'3f
:
}
}
Aggregation is permitted where the plaintiffs\rquote claims are held in common
and based on a \u8220\'3fsingle, unitary, undivided right\u8221\'3f against the
defendant. [
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Troy Bank of Troy, Ind. v. G.A. Whitehead & Co
}
}
. (1911) 222 US 39, 40\u8211\'3f41, 32 S.Ct. 9, 10;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Eagle v. AT & T
}
}
(9th Cir. 1985) 769 F2d 541, 545]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The \u8220\'3fparadigm\u8221\'3f common fund cases \u8220\'3fare those which inv
olve a single indivisible res, such as an estate, a piece of property (the class
ic example), or an insurance policy. These are matters that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
cannot be adjudicated without implicating the rights of everyone
}
}
involved with the res.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gilman v. BHC Secur., Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1997) 104 F3d 1418, 1423
}}}
(parentheses in original; emphasis added; internal quotes omitted)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1912] P1 and P2 each hold separate promissory notes executed by D,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
secured by a common mortgage
}
}
on D\rquote s property. Because the right to foreclose is held in common, their
promissory note claims can be aggregated for jurisdiction purposes in a foreclo
sure action based on diversity. [
}
t
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Troy Bank of Troy, Ind. v. G.A. Whitehead & Co.,
}
}
supra, 222 US at 40\u8211\'3f41, 32 S.Ct. at 10]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1913] P1, P2 and P3, each owning a separate interest in real prope
rty, join in an action to quiet title against the claims of D. The plaintiffs ha
ve a common and undivided interest in ridding the property of D\rquote s claims.
The values of their respective interests can be aggregated for diversity jurisd
iction purposes. [See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gentry
}
}
(1896) 163 US 353, 362\u8211\'3f363, 16 S.Ct. 1104, 1107]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1914]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Separate claims against same defendant cannot be aggregated:
}
}
If the claims joined are \u8220\'3fseparate and distinct,\u8221\'3f each plainti
ff\rquote s claims must meet the jurisdictional minimum; i.e., aggregation is no
t permitted. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pinel v. Pinel
}
}
(1916) 240 US 594, 596, 36 S.Ct. 416, 417;
}}}
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Griffith v. Sealtite Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1990) 903 F2d 495, 496
}}}
\u8212\'3fworkers\rquote claims for wages due under a single employment contrac
t were \u8220\'3fseparate and distinct\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1915] Parent sues as guardian of injured Child, claiming damages o
f less than jurisdictional minimum. Parent joins her own claim for reimbursement
of Child\rquote s medical bills. Although joinder is proper for pleading purpos
es, the claims cannot be aggregated for jurisdiction purposes. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kataoka v. May Dept. Stores Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1940) 115 F2d 521, 522]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1916] Owners of timeshares in a single property sued to enforce th
eir individual contracts with the developer. Their claims could not be aggregate
d: \u8220\'3fIt is not enough that the dispute involve a common piece of propert
y\u8212\'3fthe class members must also share a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
common interest in the collection of a single liability
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kessler v. National Enterprises, Inc
}
}
. (8th Cir. 2003) 347 F3d 1076, 1079
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1916.1] Claims brought for Labor Code violations under California\
rquote s Private Attorney General Act could not be aggregated, despite the fact
the employees would recover from a common fund of civil penalties. Because each
employee suffered a unique Labor Code injury that could be redressed without the
involvement of other employees, the obligations were several. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Urbino v. Orkin Services of Calif., Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2013) 726 F3d 1118, 1123]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2) [2:1917]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims for punitive damages:
}
}
Whether the right to recover punitive damages is \u8220\'3fjoint and undivided\u
8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fseparate and distinct\u8221\'3f is determined under applic
able state law in diversity cases. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ard v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
}
}
(5th Cir. 1998) 138 F3d 596, 601]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Most state laws allow each plaintiff to pursue a claim for punitive damages indi
vidually. Unless they hold a common and undivided interest, coplaintiffs\rquote
claims for punitive damages are deemed \u8220\'3fseparate and distinct\u8221\'3
f and may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
be aggregated for diversity jurisdiction purposes. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Ford Motor Co./ Citibank (So. Dakota), N.A.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 264 F3d 952, 960;
}}}
see also
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 1996) 75 F3d 311, 315;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gilman v. BHC Secur., Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1997) 104 F3d 1418, 1430;
}}}
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2000) 204 F3d 1069, 1076\u8211\'3f1077;
}}}
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
H & D Tire & Automotive\u8211\'3fHardware, Inc. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2000) 227 F3d 326, 329\u8211\'3f330]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(4) [2:1918]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Aggregation of claims in class actions:
}
}
Similar issues are presented in a putative class action based on diversity:
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1919]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Where \u8220\'3fundivided right\u8221\'3f claimed:
}
}
Aggregation has been permitted when a \u8220\'3fcommon and undivided\u8221\'3f
interest among the members of the class can be shown, meaning that all coparties
have a joint interest in a common fund. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Travelers Property Cas. v. Good
}
}
(7th Cir. 2012) 689 F3d 714, 722]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Aggregation has also been permitted where the named representative is suing to o
btain or preserve a \u8220\'3fcommon trust fund\u8221\'3f on behalf of all membe
rs of the class. [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Berman v. Narragansett Racing Ass\rquote n
}
}
(1st Cir. 1969) 414 F2d 311, 316;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
10:499
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1920] Plaintiffs, as representatives of fellow racehorse owners, b
rought a class action against the race track owners for money allegedly due unde
r annual purse agreements. The horse owners had equal and undivided rights to th
e fund. Under these circumstances, the amount of the fund, rather than each plai
ntiff\rquote s individual interest, constituted the \u8220\'3famount in controve
rsy.\u8221\'3f [
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Berman v. Narragansett Racing Ass\rquote n
}
}
, supra, 414 F2d at 316]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1921]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fCAFA minimum:
}
}
Under the Class Action Fairness Act, federal jurisdiction is limited to class ac
tions in which claims aggregate $5 million. [
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4be3000003be5" }{\fldrslt
28 USC \u167\'3f 1332(d)(2)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:3021 ff.
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b) [2:1922]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Separate claims cannot be aggregated:
}
}
Separate and distinct claims by class members
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
cannot be aggregated
}
}
for jurisdictional purposes. Each class member\rquote s claim must satisfy the
jurisdictional amount. [See
}
slt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Zahn v. International Paper Co.
}
}
(1973) 414 US 291, 301, 94 S.Ct. 505, 512;
}}}
see
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Travelers Property Cas. v. Good
}
}
, supra, 689 F3d at 722\u8211\'3f723
}}}
\u8212\'3fmultiple violations of same statute constituted \u8220\'3fseparate and
distinct\u8221\'3f claims for each class member and thus could not be aggregate
d;
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Friedman v. New York Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2005) 410 F3d 1350, 1354]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1923] Minority Shareholder filed a class action on behalf of herse
lf and other shareholders against the corporation\rquote s directors. The suit s
ought to recover profits that the directors had made on personal sales of the co
rporate stock, and to have these profits distributed among the shareholders. Eac
h class member\rquote s claim was separate and therefore could not be aggregated
to establish the minimum jurisdiction . . . even though all claims arose out of
the same transaction. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Snyder v. Harris
}
}
(1969) 394 US 332, 338, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1058]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1) [2:1924]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fdefendant\rquote s cost of compliance:
}
}
The result may be different where it would cost defendant more than $75,000 to
comply with any single class member\rquote s claim. [See
}
fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co
}
}
. (10th Cir. 2006) 466 F3d 893, 898
}}}
\u8212\'3frequested injunctive relief would require defendant to make costly cha
nges to its business practices;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1853
}
}
]
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(c) [2:1925]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Attorney fee claims:
}
}
When each class member is individually entitled to recover attorney fees under
the relevant statute, the class members\rquote claims are treated as separate a
nd distinct and cannot be aggregated: \u8220\'3fThe fact that the class members
pursue their substantive claims through the procedural mechanism of a class acti
on does not transform their separate and distinct rights to attorney\rquote s fe
es into a single right in which each member has a common and undivided interest.
\u8221\'3f [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co
}
}
. (11th Cir. 2000) 228 F3d 1255, 1266;
}}}
see
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Goldberg v. CPC Int\rquote l, Inc
}
}
. (9th Cir. 1982) 678 F2d 1365, 1367]
}}}
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Therefore, a potential attorney fee award in a class action must be determined o
n a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
pro rata
}
}
basis across the class or among the claimants. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kessler v. National Enterprises, Inc.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2003) 347 F3d 1076, 1080;
}}}
see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lauchheimer v. Gulf Oil
}
}
(D NJ 1998) 6 F.Supp.2d 339, 345
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fpro rata\u8221\'3f means divided equally among the class mem
bers (rather than in proportion to the size of their claims)]
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1926\u8211\'3f1929]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(5) [2:1930]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fsupplemental jurisdiction where one claim meets jurisdictional
minimum:
}
}
As discussed below (\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1945 ff.
}
}
), where diversity (or federal question) jurisdiction exists as to any claim, fe
deral courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction \u8220\'3fover
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all other claims
}
}
that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction t
hat they form
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
part of the same case or controversy under Article III . . .
}
}
\u8221\'3f [
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1367(a)
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, in a diversity case, in a multi-plaintiff action if one plaintiff\rquote s
claim satisfies the $75,000 threshold, the district court may exercise
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
supplemental jurisdiction
}
}
over claims by other plaintiffs in lesser amounts . . .
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
provided
}
}
all claims arise out of the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
same Article III case or controversy.
}
}
[See
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.
}
}
(2005) 545 US 546, 549, 566\u8211\'3f567, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 2615, 2625]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But the claim of an unnamed plaintiff class member cannot satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement. [
}
dType=Y&serNum=2026709472&pubNum=4637&originatingDoc=I70ac9e60eb2111da90bd8aaf6e
c74e0e&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_4637_662&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_4637_662" }{\f
ldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Med-Surg Group, Inc. v. Aetna Health Mgmt., Inc.
}
}
(SD WV 2011) 832 F.Supp.2d 659, 662\u8211\'3f663]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(a) [2:1931]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Claims arising out of same Article III case or controversy:
}
}
The joined claims must derive from a \u8220\'3fcommon nucleus of operative facts
\u8221\'3f so that considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness
to litigants favor trial in a single proceeding.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
\u182\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
2:1947.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(b)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application
\par
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1932] Daughter was severely injured when she sliced her finger on
a tuna can. Because her claim met the amount-in-controversy requirement, the dis
trict court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her family members\rqu
ote claims for emotional distress and medical expenses even if those claims are
for less than $75,000. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 545 US at 566\u8211\'3f567, 125 S.Ct. at 2625]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8226\'3f [2:1933] A class action was filed on behalf of 10,000 Exxon dealers f
or fuel overcharges. Because at least one class member\rquote s claim met the ju
risdictional minimum, the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over th
e other members\rquote claims. [
}
drslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 545 US at 566\u8211\'3f567, 125 S.Ct. at 2625]
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
[2:1934\u8211\'3f1944]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u169\'3f 1989-2014 by The Rutter Group, a Thomson Reuters Business
\par
}
}
{\f5 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(2014)
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10 \
brdrcf20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10 \
brdrcf20 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf20 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf20 \i0 \intbl \cell \i
ntbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf20 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf20 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \r
ow }}\par
}
}\sect }

8 Amount in Controversy Limitation On Diversity Jurisdiction

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8 Amount in Controversy Limitation On Diversity Jurisdiction

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

{\rtf1 \ansi

Вам также может понравиться