Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Zahn v. International Paper Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiversity JurisdictionClass ActionsAmount in ControversyRule 23(b)(3)diversity jurisdictionamount in controversyseparate and distinct claims

Facts

Petitioners alleged they owned property fronting on Lake Champlain in Orwell, Vermont, and sued International Paper Co., a New York corporation. They sought damages on behalf of themselves and about 200 lakefront property owners and lessees, alleging that discharges from respondent's New York pulp and paper plant polluted the lake and damaged surrounding properties. The claim of each named plaintiff exceeded $10,000, but the District Court found to a legal certainty that not every individual owner in the proposed class had suffered pollution damages above $10,000. The court also concluded it was not feasible to define a class limited to persons whose claims each exceeded that amount.

Issue

In a diversity class action under Rule 23(b)(3) involving separate and distinct claims, may unnamed class members remain in the case when their individual claims do not satisfy the jurisdictional amount required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, so long as some named plaintiffs do satisfy it?

Rule

When multiple plaintiffs assert separate and distinct claims, each plaintiff must individually satisfy the statutory amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction under § 1332. That rule applies to Rule 23(b)(3) class actions: claims may not be aggregated, and any plaintiff whose individual claim does not exceed the jurisdictional minimum must be dismissed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Patel and two other Illinois homeowners file a Rule 23(b)(3) diversity class action in federal court in Chicago against Great Lakes Thermal Systems, a Wisconsin corporation. They allege smoke from the defendant's plant damaged 180 nearby homes; each named plaintiff seeks more than $90,000, but many absent class members appear to have claims worth only $8,000 to $20,000.

If the homeowners' property-damage claims are separate and distinct, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. When plaintiffs in a Rule 23(b)(3) diversity class action assert separate and distinct claims, each plaintiff must independently satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The claims may not be aggregated merely because they arise from the same alleged wrong, and unnamed class members cannot remain in the case by relying on the named representatives' larger claims.