Diversity jurisdiction requires two criteria to be met for a federal court to hear a case based on diversity. Which of the following correctly states those criteria?

Diversity jurisdiction requires two criteria to be met for a federal court to hear a case based on diversity. Which of the following correctly states those criteria?

• A. The parties must be from different states for every plaintiff-defendant pair
• B. The case involves a federal question
• C. Complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
• D. The plaintiff must be a citizen of a foreign country

Answer: (C)

Diversity jurisdiction in federal courts hinges on two requirements. First, complete diversity: every plaintiff must be from a different state than every defendant, so no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant. Second, the amount in controversy must exceed the $75,000 threshold, meaning the value of the claim (or relief sought) is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Both conditions must be met for a federal court to hear a case based on diversity. The option that states complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is the best because it captures both parts—the state-based citizenship barrier and the monetary threshold. The other choices miss one or both parts: federal-question jurisdiction is a separate basis and not required for diversity; being a citizen of a foreign country alone is not the rule; and saying parties are from different states without mentioning the $75,000 threshold leaves out a key requirement.

Diversity jurisdiction in federal courts hinges on two requirements. First, complete diversity: every plaintiff must be from a different state than every defendant, so no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant. Second, the amount in controversy must exceed the $75,000 threshold, meaning the value of the claim (or relief sought) is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Both conditions must be met for a federal court to hear a case based on diversity.

The option that states complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 is the best because it captures both parts—the state-based citizenship barrier and the monetary threshold. The other choices miss one or both parts: federal-question jurisdiction is a separate basis and not required for diversity; being a citizen of a foreign country alone is not the rule; and saying parties are from different states without mentioning the $75,000 threshold leaves out a key requirement.