Chitpole, Inc., which is based in Alabama, packages and sells vegetables and meats wrapped in flour. Davis, who is a resident of Louisiana, buys a Chitpole product, eats it, ?and suffers severe food poisoning. Davis wants to file a suit against Chitpole. The diversity of citizenship between these parties means that
Select one:
a. ?None of the above.
b. ?Concurrent jurisdiction exists between the federal and state court.
c. ?The state court will have exclusive jurisdiction.
d. ?The federal court will have exclusive jurisdiction.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
Correct Answer: b. Concurrent jurisdiction exists between the federal and state court.
Explanation:
In this case, Davis, a resident of Louisiana, is seeking to sue Chitpole, Inc., which is based in Alabama. This scenario involves parties from different states, and therefore, it satisfies the requirement for diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S. Code § 1332.
Under U.S. federal law, diversity jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a civil case if the following conditions are met:
- The parties are citizens of different states (which is satisfied in this case), and
- The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (this is presumed for serious injuries like “severe food poisoning”).
Federal vs. State Jurisdiction:
Concurrent jurisdiction means that both federal and state courts have the authority to hear the case. Diversity jurisdiction is a classic example of concurrent jurisdiction. Davis, the injured party, can choose to bring the case either:
- In a state court in Louisiana (his home state), or
- In federal court, typically in the district court where the defendant resides or where the incident occurred (likely Alabama or Louisiana).
The case does not have to be heard exclusively in federal court, which rules out option d. Likewise, the state court does not have exclusive jurisdiction, eliminating option c. Option a (“None of the above”) is incorrect because concurrent jurisdiction is the legally accurate choice.
Conclusion:
The principle of diversity of citizenship gives the plaintiff the option to file in either state or federal court, so long as the amount in controversy requirement is met. Thus, concurrent jurisdiction exists, making option b the correct answer.