Also known as: amount in controversy test · amount-in-controversy requirement · amount in controversy · AIC requirement · amount in controversy threshold
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory threshold requiring that the value of a plaintiff's claim in a diversity action exceed seventy-five thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's good-faith allegation in the complaint ordinarily controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim cannot reach the required amount. Courts apply the test at the time of filing and reassess it upon challenge or changed circumstances such as dismissal of an anchor claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Azure Solutions sued Alpine Mining in federal court alleging breach of a supply contract and seeking $180,000 in damages. During discovery Alpine moved for a protective order limiting document requests concerning internal cost data. The court weighed the amount in controversy against the burden of production and narrowed the requests to invoices and payment records only.
Abigail Alvarez, a citizen of State A, sued Apex Dynamics, a citizen of State B, for $90,000 on a contract claim that satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement. She later joined an additional plaintiff whose related claim totaled only $40,000. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claim because it shared a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim.
Arthur Abrams served broad interrogatories on Ashford Manufacturing in a $120,000 contract dispute. Ashford's counsel certified the responses after considering the amount in controversy and concluded that answering every interrogatory would be unduly burdensome. The court upheld the certification because the responses were proportional to the stakes of the case.
Adrian Aguilar filed a diversity action against a corporate defendant seeking $50,000 in compensatory damages plus punitive damages that the complaint valued at $30,000. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion because the pleaded amount failed to meet the statutory threshold even after including the punitive claim.
Austin Abbott and other merchants each asserted claims under $10,000 against American Express. The company invoked an arbitration clause that barred class proceedings. The court enforced the clause because no individual claim satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement on its own and the clause prevented aggregation.
Aaron Adams, a union member, sued an employer in federal court under a collective-bargaining agreement seeking $80,000 in back wages. The employer challenged jurisdiction on the ground that the claim sounded only in state contract law. The court retained the case because the pleaded amount exceeded the diversity threshold and the claim arose under federal common law.
Federal courts accept the plaintiff's good-faith allegation unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim cannot reach the jurisdictional amount. Concrete allegations of tuition losses and career harm suffice even if the precise figure is uncertain.
Supporting sources
Once the anchor claim is dismissed, the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims between non-diverse parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
…"[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may…
…the district court has original jurisdiction, without carving out an exception for claims that do not independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement
…on 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), this case presents no problem of aggregation of claims in an attempt to satisfy the requisite amount in controversy of 28 U. S. C. § 1331 (a). Cf. Zahn v. International Paper Co. , 414 U. S. 291 (1973); Snyder v. Harris , 394 U. S. 332 (1969). Although the complaint did not so specify, the absence…
…the ATS became largely superfluous as of 1875, when Congress granted general federal-question jurisdiction subject to a $500 amount-in-controversy requirement
…after creating the cause of action, went on to say that "[t]he district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the
Supporting sources
Yes. The notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy when the initial pleading seeks non-monetary relief or an unspecified amount, provided the district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirement is met.
Supporting sources
Interest that constitutes part of the claim itself, such as interest accrued on a note, is included in the calculation. Interest sought merely as delay damages is excluded.
Supporting sources