• January 8, 2014
Underlying Case Is A Food Fight re: Fondant (popular use: dessert art)

Foundation of the Case Is A Food Fight re: Fondant (popular for dessert art)(roughly: edible plastic)

If, for whatever reason, you believe that your client’s case belongs in state rather than federal court and you wish to avoid “diversity jurisdiction,” you have to do more than the plaintiffs’ lawyers did in the linked case.  They essentially did nothing.

All civil litigators know the bases of diversity jurisdiction, one of which is to require “complete diversity” of citizenship between plaintiff(s) and defendant(s).  Minnesota v. Florida = OK, BUT  Minnesota v. Florida, Minnesota ≠ OK for federal diversity jurisdiction.

But if you’re representing the plaintiff and you want to stay out of federal court by suing in state court and destroying complete diversity, give it some thought.  Otherwise you’re just wasting time and money.

And, by the way, what makes lawyers think that construction of an insurance agreement (what is covered by a policy and what is excluded) will be all that different if decided by State Court Judge __________ or U.S. District Court Judge _______?  I don’t know but apparently they do.  (Here is another recent failed gambit to destroy diversity from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.