libterm.com Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds a statutory threshold, ensuring impartiality in resolving disputes. This jurisdiction prevents potential bias that might arise in state courts, offering a neutral ground based on citizenship diversity. Explore the rest of the article to understand how diversity jurisdiction impacts your legal options and case strategy.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Diversity Jurisdiction | Supplemental Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Federal court authority over civil cases between parties from different U.S. states or foreign countries. | Federal court authority to hear additional claims closely related to those with original jurisdiction. |
| Statutory Basis | 28 U.S.C. SS 1332 | 28 U.S.C. SS 1367 |
| Jurisdictional Requirement | Complete diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. | Claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the original claim. |
| Parties Involved | Adversaries must be citizens of different states or countries. | Additional parties or claims related to initial jurisdictional claims. |
| Amount in Controversy | Must exceed $75,000. | No specific amount requirement. |
| Purpose | Prevent state-court bias against out-of-state defendants. | Promote judicial efficiency by handling related claims together. |
| Limitations | Cannot be invoked if plaintiff and defendant share the same state citizenship. | May decline jurisdiction for novel or complex state law issues. |
Introduction to Federal Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases where parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, ensuring neutral federal adjudication. Supplemental jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear additional claims closely related to original claims under federal jurisdiction, even if they lack independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Both doctrines are critical components of federal jurisdiction, balancing federal and state court responsibilities.
Defining Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction refers to the federal courts' authority to hear civil cases where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as established under 28 U.S.C. SS 1332. This jurisdiction aims to provide a neutral forum to prevent state court bias against out-of-state defendants. Supplemental jurisdiction, in contrast, allows federal courts to hear additional claims related to the original case, even if those claims do not independently meet federal jurisdictional requirements.
Key Requirements for Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, as specified by 28 U.S.C. SS 1332. Parties must be citizens of different states or countries, with corporations considered citizens of both their state of incorporation and principal place of business. Supplemental jurisdiction, governed by 28 U.S.C. SS 1367, allows federal courts to hear additional claims closely related to the original jurisdictional claims, even if those additional claims lack independent jurisdictional grounds.
Limitations of Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and defendants and a minimum amount in controversy of $75,000, limiting its applicability in multi-party cases. It cannot be invoked if a plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, restricting federal court access despite interstate disputes. Supplemental jurisdiction allows related claims lacking complete diversity or sufficient amount in controversy to be heard with a federal claim, enhancing federal court efficiency beyond diversity jurisdiction's strict limitations.
Overview of Supplemental Jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear additional claims closely related to the original claims under diversity or federal question jurisdiction, even if those additional claims lack an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. It promotes judicial efficiency by enabling the resolution of all related claims arising from the same case or controversy in a single proceeding. This jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. SS 1367, which outlines conditions and exceptions for exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
Criteria for Supplemental Jurisdiction
Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear additional claims related to the original claim, provided they share a common nucleus of operative fact, ensuring judicial efficiency. The primary criteria include that the supplemental claim must arise from the same case or controversy as the original claim, as outlined in 28 U.S.C. SS 1367. Unlike diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy over $75,000, supplemental jurisdiction broadens the scope for related claims regardless of party diversity or amount.
Differences Between Diversity and Supplemental Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between parties and a controversy exceeding $75,000, allowing federal courts to hear cases involving citizens from different states. Supplemental jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear additional claims related to a case within original jurisdiction, even if those claims lack an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The key difference lies in diversity jurisdiction's strict citizenship and amount-in-controversy requirements versus supplemental jurisdiction's reliance on claim-relatedness without these thresholds.
Practical Examples of Each Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction applies when parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, such as a car accident lawsuit between a New York resident and a California resident seeking $100,000 in damages. Supplemental jurisdiction permits a federal court to hear additional state law claims related to a case already within its jurisdiction, for example, if a federal employment discrimination claim is accompanied by a related state-law breach of contract claim involving the same parties. Courts often use diversity jurisdiction to manage disputes between citizens of separate states with substantial claims, while supplemental jurisdiction efficiently consolidates related claims under federal proceedings to avoid multiple lawsuits.
Implications for Litigants and Courts
Diversity jurisdiction enables federal courts to hear cases involving parties from different states with claims exceeding $75,000, providing litigants access to a neutral forum and potentially more favorable procedural rules. Supplemental jurisdiction allows federal courts to adjudicate additional state law claims related to the original federal claim, streamlining litigation by resolving related issues in a single proceeding but may complicate jurisdictional boundaries. For courts, diversity jurisdiction demands rigorous scrutiny of parties' citizenship and claim amounts, while supplemental jurisdiction requires careful analysis of claim relationships to balance judicial efficiency against limits on federal court authority.
Conclusion: Choosing the Appropriate Jurisdiction
When choosing between diversity jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction, evaluate if the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 to justify diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. SS 1332. Supplemental jurisdiction, governed by 28 U.S.C. SS 1367, allows courts to hear related claims that do not independently meet jurisdictional requirements but are part of the same case or controversy. Selecting the appropriate jurisdiction ensures federal courts maintain authority while efficiently resolving all related claims in a single proceeding.
Diversity Jurisdiction Infographic
