Seventh Circuit Recognizes Reckless Driving by Police Can Violate Fourteenth Amendment and Reinstates Failure-to-Train Monell Claim
Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000
Today, we look at a case whose procedural posture may be almost impossible to replicate that resulted in a successful remand motion from federal court in which the plaintiff asserted that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and an appellate court affirming a subsequent state-court jury verdict for $187,500.
This week we take a look at one of the two primary jurisdictional means by which a case may be brought in federal court – id est federal diversity jurisdiction. In addition, we examine what has been referred to as the “Gaping Hole Problem” in diversity jurisdiction that arises from the potential exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. We also examine the approach the D.C. Circuit has taken in handling a case in which the presence of nondiverse parties threatened to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.