How Much, How Many
The amount in controversy requirement for Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) is not infrequently met by aggregating interrelated claims against a single defendant. However, aggregation of claims as to multiple defendants can be vulnerable to attack if there isn’t a factual nexus. If a plaintiff has sought to obtain Federal diversity jurisdiction, it is important to consider whether this requirement is met.It has long been held that, “in determining whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied, a single plaintiff may aggregate two or more claims against a single defendant, even if the claims are unrelated.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546, 585, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). Put another way, “courts do not separately evaluate each of the causes of action asserted by any one plaintiff against any one defendant.” Golden ex rel. Golden v. Golden, 382 F.3d 348, 354-55 (3d Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12, 126 S.Ct. 1735, 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006).Where the plaintiff originally files in federal court, the “legal certainty” standard is applied to determine whether the complaint meets the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010). Under this test, “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938). Courts have identified particular situations with meet “legal certainty” standard justifying dismissal, including “when independent facts show that the amount of damages was claimed merely to obtain federal court jurisdiction.” Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel–Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363-64 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting 14A Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure, Jurisdiction § 3702, at 48–50 (2d ed. 1985)).Thus, the analysis of claims asserted by a plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes should be as to each defendant, and should not allow for aggregation of discrete claims against each of them. And, evidence of improper motives or bad faith by the plaintiff may further bolster a claim that jurisdiction does not obtain.