In a diversity jurisdiction case, what must be established for the court to hear the case?

In a diversity jurisdiction case, it is essential to establish that the parties involved are citizens of different states. This requirement is rooted in the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, which is to provide an impartial forum for parties from different states, thus minimizing the potential for bias that might arise if a case is heard in a local court.

For a court to assert diversity jurisdiction, the complete diversity rule must be satisfied, meaning no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant. It’s important to note that this principle is fundamentally designed to ensure fairness in litigation between parties from varying jurisdictions.

While the statute of limitations and the amount in controversy are relevant in determining the viability of a case, they are not prerequisites for establishing diversity jurisdiction itself. The requirement regarding the defendant’s residence is specifically contrary to the complete diversity requirement, as it would imply that the defendant could be from the same state as the plaintiff, which would negate the diversity needed for federal jurisdiction. Thus, securing the condition that parties are from different states is crucial for the court's ability to hear the case under diversity jurisdiction.