Opinion ID: 760942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Basis for Jurisdiction

Text: 5 At the outset, the district court had jurisdiction in diversity over Wolde-Meskel's complaint as a whole: 6 The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between--(1) citizens of different States; ... 7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Since the diversity statute confers jurisdiction over civil actions rather than specific claims alleged in a complaint, a plaintiff is permitted to aggregate claims in order to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. See Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335, 89 S.Ct. 1053, 1056, 22 L.Ed.2d 319 (1969) (aggregation is permitted in cases in which a single plaintiff seeks to aggregate two or more claims against a single defendant). Aggregation is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 18, which allows joinder of any claims against a single defendant. Rule 18(a) provides that: 8 A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party. 9 There is no requirement that the aggregated claims (between parties) be factually related; claims joined under Rule 18 need not be part of the same case or controversy as claims over which the court would have independent original jurisdiction. See 14B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3704, at 130 (3d ed. 1998) (In the case of a single plaintiff suing a single defendant, [Rule 18] permits a litigant to join as many claims as he or she may have against an opponent regardless of the nature or relationship of those claims. When that single plaintiff joins several claims against the defendant, the general rule ... is that the value of all the claims can be added together--aggregated--in determining whether the requisite jurisdictional amount in controversy has been satisfied. (footnote omitted)). Thus all of Wolde-Meskel's aggregated initial claims were within the ambit of § 1332, and within the jurisdiction of the district court. 4