Opinion ID: 1372921
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Determining Diversity Jurisdiction

Text: [I]t is familiar law that a federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002); accord Lacey, 499 F.3d at 518. For purposes of this appeal, we will assume without deciding that a federal court has diversity jurisdiction over private TCPA claims under § 1332 if the requirements of the diversity statute are met. Cf. Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318, 324 & n. 6 (5th Cir. 2008); US Fax Law Cntr., Inc. v. iHire, Inc., 476 F.3d 1112, 1116-18 (10th Cir. 2007); Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 436 F.3d 335, 337-43 (2d Cir.2006); Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir.2005). We do not decide this issue, however, because we conclude that the amount-in-controversy requirement of § 1332 is not met in this case. The diversity statute requires that the matter in controversy exceed[] the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To defeat diversity jurisdiction, [i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938). Generally, the amount claimed by the plaintiff in the complaint rules, as long as claimed in good faith, and [e]vents occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction. Id. Dismissal is proper, however, if the amount alleged in the complaint was never recoverable in the first instance: But if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed. Id.; see also Jones v. Knox Exploration Corp., 2 F.3d 181, 183 (6th Cir.1993) ([L]ack of the jurisdictional amount from the outsetalthough not recognized until lateris not a subsequent change that can be ignored. (quoting 1 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.92[1] (2d ed.1993))). It appears to a legal certainty that [a] claim is less than the jurisdictional amount where the `applicable [ ] law bar[s] the type of damages sought by plaintiff.' Rosen v. Chrysler Corp., 205 F.3d 918, 921 (6th Cir.2000) (quoting Wood v. Stark Tri-County Bldg. Trades Council, 473 F.2d 272, 274 (6th Cir.1973)) (third alteration in Rosen ); see also Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir.2004) (concluding that when the relevant facts are not in dispute ... the District Court [should] adhere to the `legal certainty' test and interpreting relevant substantive law to determine amount of damages recoverable); 14B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3702, at 98-99 & n. 88 (3d ed. 1998 & Supp.2008) (noting that the legal-certainty test is met when a specific rule of substantive law or measure of damages limits the amount of money recoverable by the plaintiff). Therefore, if the measure of damages under the TCPA and the CSPA limits the total amount recoverable by Charvat to $75,000 or less, diversity jurisdiction is not present.