Also known as: diversity jurisdiction · 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An original jurisdiction of federal district courts over civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Complete diversity among all plaintiffs and defendants is required, and unincorporated associations take the citizenship of each member.
Fernando Farrell, a citizen of State A, sues Fusion Power, a limited partnership whose general partner resides in State A and whose limited partners reside in States B and C. The district court dismisses the action because Fusion Power is a citizen of every state in which any partner is a citizen, placing it on the same side of the diversity ledger as Farrell.
Freya Freeman, a citizen of State X, sues Fulton Shipping, a citizen of State Y, in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for a contract dispute governed by State X law. The court applies State X's statute of limitations rather than a federal rule because the state rule is outcome-determinative and must be followed to avoid forum shopping.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Farah Fox, a citizen of State P, brings a negligence claim in federal court against Frostline Textiles, a citizen of State Q, after an accident in State P. The court looks to State P's duty-of-care standard and comparative-fault rules to decide the case rather than creating an independent federal common-law rule.
Fabian Flynn, a citizen of State M, sues Falcon Dynamics, a citizen of State N, for $90,000 under diversity jurisdiction. Flynn adds two additional state-law claims against the same defendant that each fall below $75,000. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claims because they share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim.
Faith Fitzgerald, a citizen of State R, sues Fusion Power in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Although State R requires a supersedeas bond for a stay pending appeal, the court applies the federal rule governing stays because the state bond requirement would unduly burden the federal appellate process.
Francesca Fiore, a citizen of State S, files a diversity action in federal court against Fulton Shipping. State S precedent treats a particular equitable defense as unavailable after a certain point. The court refuses to apply a more lenient federal equitable doctrine because doing so would produce a different result than the identical suit litigated in State S court.
Each partner or member is counted separately, so the entity is a citizen of every state in which any partner or member is a citizen. This prevents diversity jurisdiction when any member shares citizenship with an opposing party.
Supporting sources
A lawfully admitted permanent resident domiciled in a state is treated as a citizen of that state for diversity purposes. Suits between that resident and a citizen of the same state therefore lack complete diversity.
Supporting sources
A court may decline when the supplemental claims raise novel or complex state-law issues, substantially predominate over the original claim, or when the court has dismissed all claims supporting original jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
In a direct action against a liability insurer where the insured is not joined, the insurer is deemed a citizen of every state of which the insured is a citizen in addition to its own states of incorporation and principal place of business.
Supporting sources
…v. Tyson an Argument for or against Abolishing Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction (1932) 18 A.B.A.J. 809; Ball, Revision of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction (1933) 28 Ill. L. Rev. 356, 362-64; Fordham, Swift v. Tyson and the Construction of State Statutes (1935) 41 W. Va. L.Q. 131. [^maj-7]: Compare Mr. Justice Miller in Gelpcke v. City of…