del Rosario Ortega v. Star Kist
370 F.3d 124 · 2004
Facts
In April 1999, nine-year-old Beatriz Blanco-Ortega cut her right pinky finger on a can of Star-Kist tuna. The deep cut bled profusely, leading to an emergency room visit and a diagnosis of severed tendons and nerves. Beatriz underwent surgery under general anesthesia to repair the damage, followed by eight months of painful physical therapy and wearing a cast. The injury impaired her school activities and left her with a small scar, a slightly bent finger, and a 3% permanent impairment of her hand. There is a prospect of future surgery as she grows. Her mother, father, and sister also suffered emotional distress, and her mother incurred medical expenses.
Issue
First, did each plaintiff meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)? Second, if family members did not meet this requirement, could they remain as plaintiffs under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367?
Holding
The court reversed the dismissal of Beatriz's claim, finding it was not a legal certainty she could not recover over $75,000. However, it upheld the dismissal of her family members' claims for failing to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the family members' claims, holding that supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 does not allow plaintiffs who fail the amount-in-controversy requirement to join a plaintiff who satisfies it.
Rule
For diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claim controls if made in good faith, and dismissal for lack of amount-in-controversy is only justified if it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount. Each plaintiff must individually meet this amount. Regarding supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the statute's requirement of "original jurisdiction" over the "civil action" incorporates the traditional rule that each plaintiff in a diversity case must independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. If this rule is not met, the district court lacks "original jurisdiction" over the civil action, and thus supplemental jurisdiction cannot attach to the claims of plaintiffs who do not meet the jurisdictional minimum.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.