Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — diversity jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 20, 2013//

Civil Procedure — diversity jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 20, 2013//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — diversity jurisdiction

Even though the plaintiff filed a frivolous claim for $2 billion, the district court lacked jurisdiction over a state law counterclaim seeking less than $75,000.

“The revised jurisdictional statement is riddled with errors. The fact that the plaintiff alleged an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000—in fact in excess of $2 billion—does not establish that this is the amount in controversy. ‘[I]f from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount [that is, an amount required to maintain a diversity suit] claimed or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, . . . the suit will be dismissed.’ St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). It is a legal certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to recover nothing. Since his suit is therefore not within federal jurisdiction (for remember that his invocation of admiralty jurisdiction is also groundless), the counterclaim cannot be within the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is limited to claims intimately related to claims that are within federal jurisdiction on some other ground. ‘[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (emphasis added); see Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2004).”

Vacated and Remanded.

12-3310 El v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Posner, J.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests