Can you aggregate damages among plaintiffs in a regular diversity case?

In a regular diversity case, the principle of aggregating damages among plaintiffs is governed by the requirement that a single plaintiff must meet the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000 for the court to have diversity jurisdiction. This means that for a federal court to hear the case based on diversity of citizenship, one plaintiff must claim damages of over $75,000.

When multiple plaintiffs are involved, individual claims can be combined for the purpose of determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. However, this aggregation typically requires that one plaintiff’s claim reaches the necessary amount. The diversity statute does not allow for the aggregation of claims from different plaintiffs unless one plaintiff independently satisfies the jurisdictional threshold.

Thus, the correct understanding is that one plaintiff must have damages exceeding $75,000 for the case to proceed in federal diversity jurisdiction, and the aggregation rule is not flexible in this regard. It is focused on maintaining the integrity of federal jurisdiction principles and the requirement of a single plaintiff's substantial claim.