§1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between-
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States.
For the purposes of this section, section 1335, and section 1441, an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such alien is domiciled.
(b) Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.
(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title-
(1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen, as well as of any State by which the insurer has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business; and
(2) the legal representative of the estate of a decedent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the decedent, and the legal representative of an infant or incompetent shall be deemed to be a citizen only of the same State as the infant or incompetent.
(d) The word "States", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646,
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 1,
Other provisions of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1331, 1341, 1342, 1345, 1354, and 1359 of this title. (See reviser's notes under said sections.)
Jurisdiction conferred by other sections of this chapter, except section 1335, is not dependent upon diversity of citizenship. (See annotations under former section 41 of title 28, U.S.C.A., and 35 C.J.S., p. 833 et seq. §§30–43. See, also, reviser's note under section 1331 of this title.) As to citizenship of bank where jurisdiction depends upon diversity of citizenship, see section 1348 of this title.
Words "all civil actions" were substituted for "all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity" in order to conform to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Words "or citizens of the District of Columbia, Territory of Hawaii, or Alaska, and any State or Territory" which were inserted by the amendatory act April 20, 1940, are omitted. The word "States" is defined in this section and enumeration of the references is unnecessary.
The revised section conforms with the views of Philip F. Herrick, United States Attorney, Puerto Rico, who observed that the act of April 20, 1940, permitted action between a citizen of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, but not between a citizen of New York and Puerto Rico, in the district court.
This changes the law to insure uniformity. The 1940 amendment applied only to the provision as to controversies between "citizens of different States." The new definition in subsection (b) extends the 1940 amendment to apply to controversies between citizens of the Territories or the District of Columbia, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof.
The diversity of citizenship language of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as amended in 1940, was described as ambiguous in McGarry v. City of Bethlehem, 45 F.Supp. 385, 386. In that case the 1940 amendment was held unconstitutional insofar as it affected the District of Columbia. However, two other district courts upheld the amendment. Winkler v. Daniels, D.C.Va. 1942, 43 F.Supp. 265; Glaeser v. Acacia Mutual Life Ass'n., D.C.Cal. 1944, 55 F.Supp. 925.
This section is intended to cover all diversity of citizenship instances in civil actions in accordance with the judicial construction of the language in the original section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Therefore, the revised language covers civil actions between-
Citizens of a State, and citizens of other States and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof;
Citizens of a Territory or the District of Columbia, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof;
Citizens of different States;
Citizens of different Territories;
Citizens of a State, and citizens of Territories;
Citizens of a State or Territory, and citizens of the District of Columbia;
Citizens of a State, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof.
The revised section removes an uncertainty referred to in the McGarry case, supra, as to whether Congress intended to permit citizens of the Territories or the District of Columbia to sue a State or Territory itself rather than the citizens thereof. The court observed that "Congress could hardly have had such intention."
The sentence "The foregoing provisions as to the sum or value of the matter in controversy shall not be construed to apply to any of the cases mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs of this section" was omitted as unnecessary. Those paragraphs are (2)–(28) of said section 41 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which are revised and incorporated in this chapter and, except for those relating to actions against the United States and interpleader, contains no provision as to a sum or value necessary to confer jurisdiction. Consequently the omitted sentence is covered by excluding such requirement.
Section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., as originally enacted, purported to include all jurisdictional provisions relating to the district courts. Subsequently, many special jurisdictional provisions were enacted and incorporated in other titles of the U.S.C., 1940 ed., as follows:
Amendments
1996-Subsecs. (a), (b).
1988-Subsec. (a).
Subsec. (b).
Subsec. (c).
1976-Subsec. (a)(2).
Subsec. (a)(3).
Subsec. (a)(4).
1964-Subsec. (c).
1958-
Subsec. (a).
Subsecs. (b) to (d).
1956-Subsec. (b). Act July 26, 1956, included the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Section 205(b) of
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Section 201(b) of title II of
Section 202(b) of title II of
Section 203(b) of title II of
Effective Date of 1976 Amendment
Amendment by
Effective Date of 1964 Amendment
Section 2 of
Effective Date of 1958 Amendment
Amendment by
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Defenses and objections, see rule 12, Appendix to this title.
Cross References
Controversies involving pollution of waters, jurisdiction of actions by States, see section 466g–1 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
Removal of cases from State courts, see section 1441 et seq. of this title.
Venue of actions based on diversity of citizenship, see section 1391 of this title.
Section Referred to in Other Sections
This section is referred to in sections 1335, 1367, 1446, 1603 of this title; title 42 section 9613; title 48 sections 1424, 1612, 1822.