Complete Diversity Rule

31 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Perfecto Barrantes Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co.
  883 F.2d 1553· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 73×
  A domestically incorporated corporation with a principal place of business outside the United States does not have dual citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, and thus its foreign principal place of business does not defeat diversity jurisdiction when sued by alien plai
• Carlsberg Res. Corp. v. Cambria Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  554 F.2d 1254· 3d Cir.· 1977-05-04 ·cited 41×
  The dissenting judge argues that the citizenship of limited partners should not be counted for diversity jurisdiction purposes, as they are not proper parties to suits against the partnership under state law.
• Ed Freeman and wife Sharon Freeman v. Nw. Acceptance Corp.
  754 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 38×
  The court held that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because complete diversity was likely absent, as the plaintiffs may have been citizens of Colorado, and the defendant corporation, through its subsidiary, also had Colorado citizenship.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago under Tr. Agreement dated January 3 v. Bailey
  750 F.2d 577· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that Chicago Investment's cross-claim should not have been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but its counterclaim was properly dismissed as it was not the real party in interest.
• Moheb A. H. al Sadat v. Heinz Mertes
  615 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 38×
  A naturalized U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, who also holds citizenship in a foreign state, cannot invoke alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) if the opposing party is a U.S. citizen domiciled in the same state, due to the complete diversity rule.
• Miller v. Leavenworth-Jefferson Elec. Coop., Inc.
  653 F.2d 1378· 10th Cir.· 1981-07-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the appeal was timely and that the district court properly dismissed the employer to preserve diversity jurisdiction, affirming the jury's allocation of fault.
• The Walmac Co., Inc. v. Isaacs
  220 F.2d 108· 1st Cir.· 1955-03-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had federal jurisdiction over the interpleader action based on ancillary jurisdiction, even though the plaintiff and one claimant were co-citizens, and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion on the record.
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  854 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 20×
  The court agrees with the majority's result and much of its reasoning, while also sympathizing with the dissent's concerns about jurisdictional errors.
• Harris v. Illinois-California Express, Inc.
  687 F.2d 1361· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 20×
  Permissive intervention of a party whose presence is not indispensable does not destroy diversity jurisdiction, even if their subsequent joinder as a defendant creates a situation where a plaintiff and defendant share the same state of citizenship.
• ED & Fred, Inc. v. Puritan Marine Ins. Underwriters Corp.
  506 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking due to incomplete diversity, but jurisdiction existed under admiralty law, requiring a remand to determine applicable law and agency facts.
• F. & H.R. Farman-Farmaian Consulting Eng'rs Firm & Farough Farman-Farmaian v. Harza Eng'g Co.
  882 F.2d 281· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the act of state doctrine bars the suit because the confiscation of the Iranian firm's assets, including its debt claim against Harza, was complete within Iran and did not involve U.S. territory or interests protected by the extraterritoriality exception.
• Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra Offshore, Inc.
  875 F.2d 388· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge argues that the attorney's jurisdictional theory was plausible and supported by authority, and therefore the Rule 11 sanction was too harsh.
• Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods
  959 F.2d 69· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction, did not err in compelling the production of tax returns, and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Chick KAM Choo v. Exxon Corp.
  764 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 11×
  Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) cannot be invoked in a suit between an individual alien plaintiff and an alien corporation with its principal place of business in a U.S. state.
• Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp.
  362 F.3d 739· 11th Cir.· 2004-03-15 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting opinion argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not grant federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over unnamed class members in diversity-based class actions who fail to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The dissent contends that the Suprem
• Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alejandro Alfonzo-Larrain R.
  832 F.2d 417· 7th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the obligation to pay royalties for continued use of intellectual property survives termination of the license agreement under Illinois law, and that a 'stateless' party's presence can destroy diversity jurisdiction unless dismissed.
• Brown v. Mine Safety Appliances Co.
  753 F.2d 393· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the presence of nondiverse defendants does not destroy diversity jurisdiction over other parties when an independent basis of federal question jurisdiction exists over the nondiverse defendants.
• Curley v. Brignoli
  915 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a derivative action could be recharacterized as a class action to preserve diversity jurisdiction, and the limited partnership could be dismissed as a dispensable party.
• Krueger v. Cartwright
  996 F.2d 928· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-24 ·cited 1×
  A partially subrogated insurer, whose joinder would destroy diversity jurisdiction, is not an indispensable party and can be dismissed.
• Webb v. Doe
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-29
  The court held that it must remand the case to state court because the addition of a non-diverse defendant destroyed subject matter jurisdiction.
• FEC Hwy. Servs., LLC v. Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege diversity jurisdiction by not specifying the citizenship of the parties' members or partners.
• Greenview Hotel LLC v. Great Lakes Ins. SE
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-01-04
  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to incomplete alienage diversity and must remand the case to state court.
• 4FLAC LLC v. Transcol, S.A.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-02-22
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, warranting dismissal without prejudice.
• Clear Transfer Techs. OU v. Ipay Total Ltd
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-02
  The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff, an alien corporation, is suing defendants who are also aliens, violating the principle of alienage jurisdiction which prohibits suits between two aliens.
• Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
  934 F.2d 1191· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-27
  The court lacks jurisdiction because the state law claims are not preempted by ERISA and the plaintiff is not an authorized party to bring an ERISA civil enforcement action.
• Burleson v. Coastal Rec., Inc.
  595 F.2d 332· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-12