Diversity Jurisdiction, Measuring $75,000

One of the ways to get to federal court is if there is diversity jurisdiction. This requires (1) complete diversity of citizenship of the adverse parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Lee v. Airgas MidSouth, Inc., 793 F.3d 894, 899 (8th Cir. 2015); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Many lawsuits, however, are coy on whether the suit is for above $75,000. They will often state things such as the damages are “in excess of $25,000” or otherwise seek damages that are “fair and reasonable.” This becomes particularly problematic when a defendant is trying to remove a state court case to federal court based on diversity.

In seeking removal in these situations, the “relevant jurisdictional fact” the removing party must prove here is “whether a fact finder might legally conclude” that “the damages are greater than the requisite amount.” Kopp v. Kpp, 280 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2002). The removing party must prove this fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Turntine v. Peterson, 959 F.3d 873, 881 (8th Cir. 2020). If the removing party meets this initial showing, “remand is only appropriate if the plaintiff can establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the requisite amount.” Id. A court may “employ[ ] its judicial experience or common sense” to ascertain whether the relevant jurisdictional fact is present. Id.