Diversity jurisdiction requires which of the following?

• A. Complete diversity exists when no plaintiff shares a state with any defendant, but there is no monetary threshold.
• B. Diversity jurisdiction exists when parties are from different states and no minimum amount is required.
• C. Complete diversity requires no plaintiff shares a state with any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.
• D. Diversity jurisdiction exists only when all parties are citizens of foreign countries.

Answer: (C)

Diversity jurisdiction in federal courts requires two things: complete diversity among the parties and an amount in controversy that exceeds the statutory minimum. Complete diversity means no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant—every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant. In addition, the claim must exceed the minimum dollar threshold set by statute (currently $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs).

This is why the best choice says there’s no shared state between plaintiffs and defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum. The other statements miss one or both requirements: one omits the minimum amount, another talks about parties being from different states without ensuring complete diversity, and the last describes foreign-citizenship (alienage) jurisdiction, which is a different basis for federal authority.