Court Opinion

ID: 9651756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:34:40.901038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:39.019223
License: Public Domain

GARRECHT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting)-
The majority opinion states there is ample support in the complaint to establish the minimum jurisdictional requirement as to each of the defendants to whom the stock would be distributed if distribution should follow the terms of the' contract. This argument assumes that the true test of the jurisdictional amount is viewing the amount from the standpoint of what the defendant stands to lose. The other rule—the plaintiff viewpoint rule—is that the measure of the matter in controversy for purposes of jurisdiction is the value to the plaintiff.
The appellants rely on the case of Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward, 67 U.S. 485, 492, 2 Black 485, 17 L.Ed. 311 [hereinafter referred to as the Ward case], which states: “ * * * But the want of a sufficient amount of damage having been sustained to give the Federal Courts jurisdiction, will not defeat the remedy, as the removal of the obstruction is the matter of controversy, and the value of the object must govern.”
The appellants have strongly relied upon the language of this Ward case, but the *400United States Supreme Court in Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U.S. 322, 27 S.Ct. 529, 534, 51 L.Ed. 821, interpreted that language thusly:
“In Mississippi & Missouri Railroad Company v. Ward [67 U.S. 485], 2 Black 485, 17 L.Ed. 311, it was decided that jurisdiction is to be tested by the value of the object to be gained by the bill." [Emphasis ours.]
It is the plaintiff who is to gain in the action and this is a statement of the plaintiff viewpoint rule. The “value of the object” approach to the measure of jurisdiction as used in the Ward case has been restricted by the United States Supreme Court to the plaintiff's viewpoint.
The United States Supreme Court in Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. Mutual Light, Heat & Power Co., 239 U.S. 121, 36 S.Ct. 30, 32, 60 L.Ed. 174, discussed the Ward case further:
“We are unable to discern any sufficient ground for taking this case out of the rule applicable generally to suits for injunction to restrain a nuisance, a continuing trespass, or the like, viz., that the jurisdictional amount is to be tested by the value of the object to be gained by complainant. The object of the present suit is not only the abatement of the nuisance, but (under the prayer for general relief) the prevention of any recurrence of the like nuisance in the future. In Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. Ward [67 U.S. 485], 2 Black [485], 492, 17 L.Ed. 311, 314, it was said: ‘The want of a sufficient amount of damage having been sustained to give the Federal courts jurisdiction will not defeat the remedy, as the removal of the obstruction is the matter of controversy, and the value of the object must govern.’ The same rule has been applied in numerous cases, and under varying circumstances. [Cases cited.] [Emphasis added]
“The district court erred in testing the jurisdiction by the amount that it would cost the defendant to remove the poles and wires where they conflict or interfere with those of complainant, and replacing them in such a position as to avoid the interference. Complainant sets up a right to maintain and operate its plant and conduct its business free from wrongful intervention by defendant. This right is alleged to be of a value in excess of the jurisdictional amount, and at the hearing no question seems to have been made but that it has such value. The relief sought is the protection of that right, now and in the future, and the value of that protection is determinative of the jurisdiction.”
In this case, the Supreme Court followed the rule that the amount in controversy is to be tested by the value of the object to be gained by the complainant.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court discuss the value of the right to suit or the value of the object to be gained, and both of these phrases are consistent only with the plaintiff viewpoint rule.
There is a recent case, Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 62 S.Ct. 673, 675, 86 L.Ed. 951, in which the action was brought by several plaintiffs. The district court dismissed the action because the nature of the suit was not such as to permit the aggregation of the claims of all the plaintiffs. The Circuit Court of Appeals, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 105, reversed the dismissal on the ground that the claims could be aggregated for the purpose of determining the value of the matter in controversy. The Supreme Court said:
“The policy of the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction upon the district courts calls for strict construction. [Cases cited] Accordingly, if a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the allegations by competent proof. * * * In a diversity litigation the value of the ‘matter in controversy’ is measured not by the monetary result of determining the principle involved, but by its pecuniary consequence to those involved in the litigation. [Cases cited]”
The last phrase “pecuniary consequence to those involved in the litigation” is not to be interpreted as.adopting the defendant’s viewpoint rule as the court at no point discussed the loss or value to the defendant. This is also true of the Wheless v. St. Louis case, 180 U.S. 379, 382, 21 S.Ct. 402, 45 L.Ed. 583, which is cited in the Thomson v. Gaskill case.
A careful check of all the authorities cited by - the appellants and quoted in the majority opinion will bear out the observation, that the lower Federal courts have recognized the rule that the value in controversy may be viewed from the defendant’s standpoint but there are no cases in which the United States Supreme Court has adopted this rule. I am of the opin*401ion that the plaintiff’s viewpoint rale is the one recognized by the Supreme Court. It is the reasonable rule because the plaintiff must open the case and in order to sue in the Federal Court the plaintiff must have a matter in controversy of the value of $3,000. If the plaintiff’s right is not worth that much, there is no jurisdiction.
The judgment of the District Court should have been affirmed.