A plaintiff from State A files a lawsuit in federal court against two defendants: one from State A and one from State B. The plaintiff's claims arise from the same transaction, with a claim of $80,000 against the defendant from State A and a claim of $85,000 against the defendant from State B. Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction?
No, because there is no complete diversity of citizenship.
No, because the claims should be brought in state court.
Yes, because each claim exceeds the required amount in controversy.
Yes, because supplemental jurisdiction supports related claims.
The correct answer is grounded in the rules governing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the case must meet two primary requirements: (1) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants, and (2) the amount in controversy for each plaintiff must exceed $75,000. Here, complete diversity is not satisfied because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are both citizens of State A. Even though both claims meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, the lack of complete diversity prevents the federal court from asserting diversity jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which allows certain claims lacking independent jurisdictional grounds to proceed in federal court if they arise from the same case or controversy, also does not apply here because the base requirement of complete diversity under § 1332 is not met. Other choices incorrectly assume that exceptions or other jurisdictional principles apply.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.