Legal Definitions - Aggregation of Jurisdictional Amount

The legal concept of Aggregation of Jurisdictional Amount refers to the practice of combining multiple financial claims to meet a court's minimum monetary requirement for hearing a case. Many courts, particularly federal courts in the United States, have a specific "amount in controversy" threshold that must be met for a case to be filed there. Currently, for federal diversity jurisdiction, this amount is $75,000.

While generally, parties cannot simply add up unrelated claims or the claims of different individuals to reach this threshold, there are specific exceptions:

• Claims by a Single Party Against a Single Opposing Party: A single plaintiff can combine all of their separate and distinct claims against the same defendant to meet the jurisdictional amount. However, if multiple legal theories are presented for the same injury or damage, these theories do not add to the total amount in controversy. The court considers the maximum potential recovery for that single injury.
• Claims by Multiple Parties with a Common and Undivided Interest: When two or more plaintiffs share a single, indivisible interest in the subject of the lawsuit, their collective damages can be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount. This typically applies when they are jointly affected by the same harm or own property together.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Aggregating Distinct Claims by One Party

  Imagine a small business owner, Ms. Chen, who has two separate disputes with her office supply vendor, "Office Solutions Inc."

  • First, Office Solutions Inc. failed to deliver a specialized printer, causing Ms. Chen to lose a contract worth $40,000.
  • Second, in a completely separate incident, Office Solutions Inc. delivered faulty computer monitors that damaged Ms. Chen's network, requiring $45,000 in repairs and data recovery.

  Ms. Chen wants to sue Office Solutions Inc. in federal court. Individually, neither claim meets the $75,000 federal jurisdictional amount. However, because both claims are distinct and are against the same defendant (Office Solutions Inc.), Ms. Chen can aggregate them. Her total claim is $40,000 + $45,000 = $85,000. This combined amount exceeds the $75,000 threshold, allowing her to file her lawsuit in federal court.

• Example 2: Alternative Theories for the Same Injury

  Consider Mr. Davies, whose custom-built deck collapsed due to poor construction. The cost to rebuild the deck to the proper specifications is estimated at $60,000. Mr. Davies sues his contractor, alleging both "breach of contract" (the contractor didn't follow the agreement) and "negligence" (the contractor performed the work carelessly).

  Even though Mr. Davies presents two legal theories (breach of contract and negligence), both claims arise from the same single injury – the collapsed deck and the $60,000 cost to fix it. He cannot add these two theories together to reach $120,000. The maximum he can recover for this single injury is $60,000. Since $60,000 is below the $75,000 federal jurisdictional amount, he would likely need to file his case in a state court, unless there's another basis for federal jurisdiction.

• Example 3: Multiple Parties with a Common and Undivided Interest

  Three siblings, Sarah, Tom, and Lisa, jointly own a family heirloom painting. While the painting was on loan to a local gallery, it was severely damaged due to the gallery's negligence. The estimated cost to restore the painting is $90,000.

  Sarah, Tom, and Lisa decide to sue the art gallery. Although there are three plaintiffs, they share a "common and undivided interest" in the single painting. They are not each claiming $90,000; rather, they collectively seek $90,000 for the damage to their shared property. Because their interest is common and undivided, the total $90,000 in damages can be aggregated to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional amount, allowing them to pursue their claim in federal court.