In a scenario where there is complete diversity of citizenship, can a court assert jurisdiction if one claim does not meet the necessary financial threshold?

The assertion that a court can assert jurisdiction in a case with complete diversity of citizenship even if one claim does not meet the necessary financial threshold is correct. In federal court, the requirement for diversity jurisdiction is complete diversity between the parties involved and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000 for the claims that form the basis of the federal jurisdiction.

If there is a federal claim present, this federal question provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, allowing the court to hear the case regardless of whether one of the claims falls below the $75,000 threshold. This scenario highlights the concept of supplemental jurisdiction, where related state law claims can be heard in federal court alongside the federal claim, even if they do not meet the monetary threshold.

Other scenarios mentioned, such as requiring all claims to exceed $75,000 or asserting that the lack of a financial threshold on one claim would negate jurisdiction, do not apply in this context where federal jurisdiction is established on the basis of a separate federal claim. Additionally, while related claims can often be combined under supplemental jurisdiction, the presence of an independent federal claim is the pivotal factor for the court’s ability to assert jurisdiction overall, regardless of the individual claim amounts.