Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/300

 546US1

Unit: $U10

[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 81 (2005)

89

Opinion of the Court

114 (“Upon information and belief, Lincoln Property Com­ pany is a corporation with corporate headquarters [in] Texas.”); 373 F. 3d, at 620. Accordingly, for jurisdictional purposes, Lincoln is a citizen of Texas and of no other State. 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1) (“a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business”). We turn now to the reasons why the Fourth Circuit erred in determining that diversity jurisdiction was not proved by the removing parties. 373 F. 3d, at 612 (concluding that “[d]efendants failed to carry their burden of proof with re­ spect to their allegedly diverse citizenship”). The principal federal statute governing diversity jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction of all civil actions “between. . . citizens of different States” where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. § 1332(a)(1).5 Since Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806), we have read the statutory formulation “between. . . citizens of dif­ ferent States” to require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 68 (1996); cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 530–531 (1967) (explaining that com­ plete diversity is not constitutionally required and upholding interpleader under § 1335 based on minimal diversity, i. e., diversity between two or more adverse parties). While § 1332 allows plaintiffs to invoke the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction, § 1441 gives defendants a correspond­ ing opportunity. Section 1441(a) states: “Except as other­ wise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” The scales are not 5

The Roches sought damages well in excess of the jurisdictional mini­ mum. App. 40–50, 66–75, 131–134.