What does 'complete diversity' mean in federal diversity jurisdiction?

What does 'complete diversity' mean in federal diversity jurisdiction?

• A. All plaintiffs are citizens of the same state as all defendants.
• B. Diversity exists if at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states.
• C. All plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants; no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant.
• D. Diversity is determined by domicile rather than citizenship.

Answer: (C)

Complete diversity means every plaintiff must be from a different state than every defendant. In other words, no plaintiff can share a state of citizenship with any defendant, so all pairs of parties are from different states. For individuals, citizenship generally tracks domicile, while for corporations it includes the state of incorporation and the principal place of business. This is why the best description is that all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants; no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant. The other ideas don’t fit: if all plaintiffs and all defendants are from the same state, there’s no diversity; if any cross-state connection exists between at least one plaintiff and one defendant, that would still fail complete diversity; and saying diversity is determined by domicile rather than citizenship is misleading because the rule centers on citizenship (which for individuals is tied to domicile, but for corporations uses incorporation and principal place of business).

Complete diversity means every plaintiff must be from a different state than every defendant. In other words, no plaintiff can share a state of citizenship with any defendant, so all pairs of parties are from different states. For individuals, citizenship generally tracks domicile, while for corporations it includes the state of incorporation and the principal place of business. This is why the best description is that all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants; no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant.

The other ideas don’t fit: if all plaintiffs and all defendants are from the same state, there’s no diversity; if any cross-state connection exists between at least one plaintiff and one defendant, that would still fail complete diversity; and saying diversity is determined by domicile rather than citizenship is misleading because the rule centers on citizenship (which for individuals is tied to domicile, but for corporations uses incorporation and principal place of business).