Civil Procedure: Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332) (Pt 2: Amount in Controversy Requirement)

Law school and bar exam prep trusted by 100,000+ students: https://www.studicata.com 00:00 Overview of Diversity Jurisdiction Introduces the two-prong test for diversity jurisdiction and shifts focus from complete diversity to the amount in controversy. 02:51 What Counts Toward the Amount in Controversy Explains that the requirement is based on the monetary value at stake and introduces common scenarios where the threshold is easily met. 05:20 Defining the $75,000 Threshold Clarifies that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000—$75,000 exactly is not enough. 07:04 Excluded Costs: Interest, Fees, and Expenses Outlines which values do not count toward the threshold, including costs of litigation and most types of interest. 09:47 Exception for Attorney’s Fees Explains that attorney’s fees do count toward the amount in controversy when recoverable by contract or statute. 11:04 When Interest Does Count Covers when agreed-upon interest (like loan interest) may be included and when penalty interest cannot. 14:41 Defenses and Counterclaims Are Excluded Reiterates that only the plaintiff’s complaint counts toward the amount in controversy—defenses and counterclaims are excluded. 15:44 The Legal Certainty Test Introduces the test courts use to ensure plaintiffs are alleging damages in good faith and not inflating numbers to stay in federal court. 20:00 Legal Limits on Recovery Provides an example where statutory caps on damages allow a court to dismiss a case despite a good-faith claim above $75,000. 23:14 When Facts Alone Defeat the Claim Cautions that courts rarely dismiss for factual insufficiency but can do so if claims are egregiously unsupported. 25:37 Valuing Equitable Relief Explains how courts value non-monetary remedies like injunctions using three different approaches. 28:53 Practice Problem: Injunction vs. Construction Shows how the amount in controversy depends on which party’s viewpoint is used to value an injunction. 32:39 Aggregation of Claims – Key Issue in Testing Shifts focus to whether and when claims can be added together to meet the jurisdictional threshold. 34:49 Three Joinder Scenarios Outlines the three types of joinder situations affecting aggregation: single plaintiff vs. single defendant, multiple parties, and counterclaims. 37:19 Aggregating Claims by a Single Plaintiff Explains that a single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against one defendant, even if unrelated. 38:49 Multiple Parties – When Aggregation Fails Covers situations where aggregation fails because parties have separate and distinct interests. 41:10 Joint Liability = Aggregation Allowed Explains that joint liability allows aggregation because either defendant is responsible for the full damages. 42:26 Practice Problem – Common Title in Land Illustrates aggregation where multiple defendants share a common source of title, allowing recovery of full value. 47:23 Practice Problem – Separate Injuries, No Aggregation Shows how two plaintiffs injured in the same accident cannot aggregate damages when their injuries are distinct. 50:17 Practice Problem – Jointly Liable Doctor and Nurse Demonstrates successful aggregation where defendants are jointly liable for the same injury. 51:27 Counterclaims Can’t Be Aggregated Clarifies that counterclaims, like defenses, cannot be included in the amount in controversy calculation. 53:21 Preview: Supplemental Jurisdiction Ends with a preview of how supplemental jurisdiction might save related claims that fall short on their own. Thinking about using Studicata? You’re in good company. ✅ Trusted by 100,000+ law students and bar takers ✅ Featured and recommended by top law schools ✅ Named the 81st fastest-growing education company in the U.S. by Inc. See why so many future lawyers choose us to study smarter—not harder: 👉 https://www.studicata.com