Opinion ID: 3013832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: controversy between the parties in excess

Text: of the statutory minimum. See 28 U.S.C. Appellees contend that the amount § 1332(a). The amount need not be in controversy has not been adequately proven; rather, the amount is judged from pled. The amount in controversy is a the face of the complaint and is generally statutory limit on the subject matter over established by a good faith allegation. See which the federal courts have jurisdiction. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).4 As with all 348, 353 (1961) (measuring “good faith” by whether it appears “to a legal certainty 3 Appellants’ motion sought only the claim is really for less than the partial summary judgment on their undue jurisdictional amount”) (internal influence, fraud and forgery claims. quotations and citations omitted); St. Paul 4 At all times during this controversy, the statutory minimum was $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 4 Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 335 U.S. 283, 288 (1938); see also Jumara v. (1969); Suber, 104 F.3d at 588 (3d Cir. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 877 (3d 1997); see also 14B Wright, Miller & Cir. 1995). Each plaintiff must meet the Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3d amount in controversy § 3704 at 134 (1994). requirement—claims may not be Claims for punitive damages may aggregated among plaintiffs to meet the be aggregated with claims for statutory minimum. See Meritcare, 166 compensatory damages unless the former F.3d at 218 (citing 14B Wright, Miller & are “‘patently frivolous and without Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 3d foundation.’” Packard, 994 F.2d at 1046 § 3704 at 134 (1994)). On the other hand, (quoting Gray v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., courts do not separately evaluate each of 387 F.2d 935, 936 (3d Cir. 1968)). the causes of action asserted by any one Punitive damage claims are per se plaintiff against any one defendant.5 “‘patently frivolous and without foundation’” if they are unavailable as a matter of state substantive law. See In re 5 The notable exception occurs Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 39 F.3d 61, 64 where recovery on one of the plaintiff’s (3d Cir. 1994); Packard v. Provident Nat. claims excludes recovery for one or more Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1046 (3d Cir. of the others. See Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 1993). Where guidance from state 104 F.3d 578, 588 (3d Cir. 1997). substantive law is absent, the federal In cases where a plaintiff has sued multiple defendants on the theory that they share liability, several circuit courts each defendant is liable for the entire measure pleading of the amount in amount, although the plaintiff only controversy under the rubric of recovers the entire amount once. Cf. “aggregation.” See, e.g., Middle Tenn. Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Div., Nat News Co. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., Steel Corp., 495 F.2d 213, 218-19 (6th Cir. 250 F.3d 1077, 1081 (7th Cir. 2001); 1974). If that amount of liability is above Jewell v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 290 the statutory threshold, jurisdiction has F.2d 11, 13 (5th Cir. 1961). Thus, a attached. Any other rule would effectively plaintiff is permitted to “aggregate” his or multiply the amount in controversy her claims against the multiple defendants requirement by the number of defendants to meet the statutory requirement. We alleged to share liability. have never passed on the issue. Here, all but one of Appellants’ Although we think the causes of action assert that the Appellees “aggregation” approach reaches the correct are jointly liable. In pleading the amount result, we do not see the question as one of in controversy, therefore, the Appellants aggregation. Rather, an assertion of joint need not have distinguished among the and several liability is an assertion that Appellees. 5 courts must attempt to predict the position $250,000.00.6 But if the filing of the tax that the state courts would take on the return with the Orphans’ Court was a question. Corestates, 39 F.3d at 64. If determination by that court of the actual appropriately made, therefore, a request value of the estate, then a determination by for punitive damages will generally satisfy a federal court that the estate should have the amount in controversy requirement been valued higher than $188,946 would because it cannot be stated to a legal constitute an impermissible collateral certainty that the value of the plaintiff’s impeachment of a state court judgment. claim is below the statutory minimum. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia