Last week we read about one of the basic requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction: all the plaintiffs have to be citizens of different states than all the defendants. But as you know, there’s a second requirement, the minimum amount in controversy. And you won’t be surprised to learn there’s a timing argument: Over what time period is the amount in controversy measured? The Ninth Circuit recently rejected an argument that the amount in controversy only counts what damages have already happened by the day the case arrives in federal court.

Elsa Chavez sued her former employer, JPMorgan Chase, in California state court, alleging that JPMorgan unlawfully fired her. JPMorgan removed the case to federal district court, and Chavez did not object. But after JPMorgan won on summary judgment Chavez appealed, arguing that the federal court never had jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met. Chavez argued that the amount-in-controversy is determined at “the time of removal,” meaning the amount wages she had lost up until when JPMorgan removed the case to federal court. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the amount-in-controversy included Chavez’s claims for lost wages through her planned retirement in 2023.

The Ninth Circuit sketched out Chavez’s argument as based on “our oft-repeated statement that the amount in controversy is assessed as of ‘the time of removal.’ . . . She contends that this means the amount in controversy does not include any damages incurred after the time [of] removal . . . .”

But the amount-in-controversy is simply the “amount at stake in the . . . litigation. . . . When we say that the amount in controversy is assessed at the time of removal, we mean that we consider damages that are claimed at the time the case is removed by the defendant.” Because Chavez claimed that JPMorgan owed her future wages through her planned retirement, those future wages were at stake in the litigation regardless of when Chavez would have earned them. And because those future wages were greater than the amount-in-controversy requirement, the district court had jurisdiction to enter summary judgment against Chavez.

Read the Ninth Circuit’s opinion here.