Even a novice litigator can recite the two simple requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction: (1) complete diversity of citizenship of adverse parties and (2) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.1 Three recent decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York serve as a reminder, however, that the dictates of the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C §1332, may not be as plain as they appear, especially to a judiciary growing skeptical of the continued need for diversity jurisdiction as a protection against local bias by state courts.
In Mills 2011 v. Synovus Bank2 and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley,3 Southern District Judges Alison J. Nathan and Shira A. Scheindlin, respectively, each found diversity lacking after grappling with complicated questions pertaining to the citizenship of artificial entities. In ACCD Global Agriculture v. Perry,4 Southern District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, sua sponte, dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint after rejecting the plaintiffs’ unopposed efforts at alleging that more than $75,000 was in controversy.
Citizenship of a Trust
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
