INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

§ 540

Citation
§ 540
Parent Document
Flo-Pro v. 10 Iron Horse Drive, et al, 2011 DNH 155 (2011)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
2011-09-28
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10694944/flo-pro-v-10-iron-horse-drive-et-al/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (490)

Full Text

564 chars 
6Some courts have reasoned that a possessory action cannot,
by definition, satisfy the amount in controversy reguirement for
diversity jurisdiction, at least where the plaintiff does not
have a claim for rent.  See, e.g.. Harvard Real Est.-Allston,
Inc. v. KMART Corp., 407 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320-21 (D. Mass. 2005) .
But, again, the defendants do not dispute that the amount in
controversy here exceeds $75,000.   (There is also contrary
authority, most notably Judge Posner's decision in BEM I, L.L.C.
v. Anthropologie, Inc., 301 F.3d 548, 553-54 (7th Cir. 2002)).