Yeazell,
pp. 242-244: Note: Amount in Controversy
The
amount in controversy requirement keeps small-potatoes diversity cases out of federal
court. However, we must really really believe that the plaintiff has no shot at
getting $75,000.01 before we’re going to keep him from getting into federal court
on that basis.
1. But what if
the plaintiff wants some kind of equity relief?
Can we put a price tag on it?
There are a few different approaches:
a. How much is
the injunction worth to the plaintiff?
Greater than $75,000?
b. How much would
it cost for the defendant to comply?
Greater than $75,000?
c. Which party is
invoking federal jurisdiction? Is the plaintiff
bringing the suit in federal court, or is the defendant trying to remove from
state to federal court? We can base the
cost/value on whoever is doing the federalizing.
2. Can a plaintiff
stick some claims together to get over the magic $75,000 hump?
a. If you have
two or more unrelated claims against the same defendant, you can stick ‘em together.
b. If two plaintiffs
have claims against a single defendant, they can’t stick ‘em
together.
c. If one plaintiff
has a big money claim and a second plaintiff has a little money claim against
the same defendant, the first plaintiff obviously gets in for being over the
$75,000. What about the second
dude? If the claims are related, the
second dude can get in too, at least in the Seventh Circuit.
d. If a bunch of people
are fighting over the same particular stuff, and the stuff is worth more than
$75,000, you’ll let the whole gang into federal court unless the different plaintiffs
have different claims.
e. It’s more
complex if you have a class action. At
least one of the class plaintiffs must have over $75,000 at stake. Some courts have ruled that every
class plaintiff must have over $75,000.
However, since §
1367, some lower courts have said that this has now changed.
3. I don’t know
the difference between a compulsory counterclaim and a permissive counterclaim
(now I do! See #4), but the former gets
in if the original claim is big enough, while the latter needs some other basis
for jurisdiction. But nobody’s sure
whether the bigness of the defendant’s counterclaim can get you in the door federally.
4.
a. This is no
good because the amount in controversy must be greater than
$75,000. Mas
must sue for $75,000.01.
b. Mas is good to go, however, Perry’s claim can only go forward in federal court
if it is a “compulsory counterclaim”. Oh
wait, I see…a compulsory counterclaim is one that you couldn’t possibly bring
in a separate suit later. Perry’s claim
is permissive, not compulsory, and so it will be dismissed. Perry could just as well sue in state court
for the unpaid rent.
c. This is fine:
you can add up unrelated claims against the same defendant.
d. These are two
different plaintiffs with two unrelated claims.
They can’t stick ‘em together.
e. I think they
can stick ‘em together because both plaintiffs are
suing to protect the same right/interest.
Also, it would make sense to grant diversity jurisdiction here on
efficiency grounds.