The traditional rationale of federal diversity jurisdiction is to protect out-of-state parties from the risk of an appearance of state-court bias in favor of an in-state adversary. Yet a strikingly high percentage—more than 50 percent—of original domestic-diversity cases are filed by in-state plaintiffs. Why these in-state plaintiffs invoke diversity jurisdiction is a question that has largely been ignored in the literature. Drawing on docket data and an original dataset based on responses to a survey sent to more than twelve thousand attorneys who represented in-state plaintiffs in domestic-diversity cases, I find that these plaintiffs can be grouped into roughly three categories. The first category is composed of tort cases, filed by individual plaintiffs against corporate defendants, that are eligible for consolidation with an existing federal multi-district litigation. The second category is composed of in-state corporate plaintiffs represented by attorneys who tend to represent defendants in federal court and who invoke diversity jurisdiction primarily based on perceptions of advantages of federal procedure, efficiencies and conveniences of federal practice, and superior quality of federal court. The third category is composed of in-state plaintiffs represented by attorneys who tend to represent plaintiffs in state court and who invoke diversity jurisdiction to preempt the defendant’s likely removal of the case. My findings offer grounds for reforming diversity jurisdiction in more tailored and nuanced ways than have previously been proposed.

中文翻译：

---

为什么州内原告援引多元化管辖权？

联邦多元化管辖权的传统理由是保护州外当事人免受州法院偏向州内对手的风险。然而，原始国内多元化案件的比例惊人地高（超过 50%）是由州内原告提起的。为什么这些州内原告援引多样性管辖权是一个在文献中很大程度上被忽视的问题。根据对在国内多元化案件中代表州内原告的一万二千多名律师发送的一项调查的答复，利用案卷数据和原始数据集，我发现这些原告可以大致分为三类。第一类是由个人原告对公司被告提起的侵权案件，有资格与现有的联邦跨区诉讼合并。第二类由州内公司原告组成，由律师代表，他们倾向于在联邦法院代表被告，并主要基于对联邦程序的优势、联邦实践的效率和便利性以及联邦法院的卓越质量的看法而援引多元化管辖权。 。第三类由州内原告组成，由律师代表，他们往往在州法院代表原告，并援引多元化管辖权来阻止被告可能撤诉案件。我的研究结果为以比之前提议的更有针对性、更细致的方式改革多元化管辖权提供了基础。第二类由州内公司原告组成，由律师代表，他们倾向于在联邦法院代表被告，并主要基于对联邦程序的优势、联邦实践的效率和便利性以及联邦法院的卓越质量的看法而援引多元化管辖权。 。第三类由州内原告组成，由律师代表，他们往往在州法院代表原告，并援引多元化管辖权来阻止被告可能撤诉案件。我的研究结果为以比之前提议的更有针对性、更细致的方式改革多元化管辖权提供了基础。第二类由州内公司原告组成，由律师代表，他们倾向于在联邦法院代表被告，并主要基于对联邦程序的优势、联邦实践的效率和便利性以及联邦法院的卓越质量的看法而援引多元化管辖权。 。第三类由州内原告组成，由律师代表，他们往往在州法院代表原告，并援引多元化管辖权来阻止被告可能撤诉案件。我的研究结果为以比之前提议的更有针对性、更细致的方式改革多元化管辖权提供了基础。