Also known as: jurisdictional amounts · amount in controversy
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The monetary value of the claim or relief sought in a lawsuit. This threshold must be satisfied to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
Joy Jiang sued Jones Petroleum in federal court alleging breach of a supply contract and demanded $120,000 in damages. Jones Petroleum served broad interrogatories seeking five years of Jiang's unrelated financial records. The court limited the requests after finding that the modest amount in controversy made the burden of production disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Jeffrey Jha, a citizen of State A, sued Jimenez Motors, a citizen of State B, for $90,000 in damages arising from a defective vehicle. Jha's co-plaintiff Jessica Jacobs asserted a related claim for only $40,000 arising from the same transaction. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Jacobs's claim because Jha's claim satisfied the jurisdictional amount and the claims shared a common nucleus of operative fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jillian James sued Jung BioTech seeking $85,000 for alleged trade-secret misappropriation. James served 45 document requests covering ten years of the company's global operations. Jung BioTech's counsel certified the requests as proportional after weighing the amount in controversy against the expense of compliance.
Jada Jones filed a federal action challenging an agency order that denied her $80,000 workers' compensation claim. The court examined whether the full future value of installment payments counted toward the jurisdictional amount before determining that diversity jurisdiction existed.
Justin Jarvis sued Jefferson Trust for $95,000 in damages arising from an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The defendant moved to strike the jury demand on the ground that the claim fell below the constitutional amount required to preserve the right to a jury trial.
A foreign bank sued a state-owned entity in federal court seeking $200,000 on a commercial contract. The court confirmed that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional amount even though the defendant asserted sovereign immunity.
The claim must exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. A good-faith allegation in the complaint is ordinarily sufficient unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover that amount.
Supporting sources
No. Separate and distinct claims cannot be aggregated. At least one plaintiff's claim must independently exceed $75,000 before supplemental jurisdiction may cover the remaining plaintiffs' smaller claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Interest that forms part of the underlying claim itself, such as accrued interest on a note, is included. Interest awarded merely for delay in payment is excluded.
Supporting sources
The sum demanded in the initial pleading is presumed to control if made in good faith. When the pleading is indeterminate, the notice of removal may assert the amount and the court applies a preponderance standard.
…"[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…