ph14 wrote: thegrayman wrote:
ph14 wrote:Clarification question: I thought amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was calculated exclusive of interest and costs. In acing it says that you can aggregate principal and interest owed on a debt to reach the amount in controversy requirement. So is that just an exception to the general rule that AIC is calculated exclusive of interest and costs?
that is my understanding. courts are allowed to play loose with the rules as well.
Do you have a source you can cite?
just my notes:
Amount in Controversy – For Diversity Jurisdiction
a. Exclusive of interest and costs
i. Except – interest that is part of the principal or the principal claim itself at the time it arose can be included
b. Attorney’s fees can be included
c. Sum claimed by the π controls
i. Must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal
d. 28 USC §1332(b) can impose fines and without costs from π if final judgment is $75K or less
So it looks like things like attorney's fees "can" be included and interest as part of principal "can", my professor was saying those exceptions give a little wiggle room, if the P gets his claim in and then gets a final judgment that is under the AIC requirement, the judge can give him a slap on the wrist.
hope that helps, my professor was saying (regarding my "playing loose" comment) that you rarely see a case get thrown out solely for that reason, the judge imposed fine is a shaming device for lawyers who should have known that their judgment was going to be less but claimed higher.