Also known as: complete diversity rule · complete diversity requirement · complete diversity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of federal subject-matter jurisdiction requiring that every plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from every defendant in a diversity action.
Raphael Rivera, a citizen of State A, sues Raven Logistics, a citizen of State B, for $90,000 in damages arising from a contract breach. After filing, Rivera joins an additional claim for $40,000 against the same defendant arising from the same transaction. The court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the smaller claim because complete diversity already exists between the original parties and the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Rina Rahman, a citizen of State A, brings a Jones Act claim in federal court against a foreign shipowner and two stevedoring companies incorporated in Delaware and New York. The district court dismisses the action because the parties are not completely diverse under the rule, as the presence of non-diverse parties on both sides defeats jurisdiction even though maritime claims are also asserted.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rebecca Ross, a citizen of State A, sues Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, a citizen of State B, in federal court seeking damages exceeding $75,000 for breach of a construction contract. The hospital moves to stay the action pending arbitration. The court denies the stay because complete diversity exists between the parties and the federal policy favoring arbitration does not override the independent basis for diversity jurisdiction.
Every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant. If any plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant, diversity jurisdiction is destroyed even if other parties are diverse.
Yes. An unincorporated association takes the citizenship of each of its members, so complete diversity fails if any member shares citizenship with an opposing party.
Supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised over additional claims that do not meet the amount requirement only if complete diversity already exists between the original parties and the supplemental claims share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Yes. If a non-diverse party is dismissed before trial and complete diversity then exists, the court may retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
…the vessel. The remaining claims, including those against the other respondents, were dismissed because of lack of the requisite complete diversity under the rule of Strawbridge v. Curtiss , 3 Cranch 267. Upon examination of the Spanish law the district judge also declined jurisdiction "even in admiralty as a matter of discretion."…