Chapter 21-2 Pleading and Determining Amount in Controversy

• Jurisdiction: United States

21-2 Pleading and Determining Amount in Controversy

Generally, a pleading invokes the court's jurisdiction by pleading facts that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.²⁹ Absent an indication of fraud, jurisdic-tional allegations in the petition control.³⁰

21-2:1 Aggregation of Claims

The claims of multiple plaintiffs are aggregated for the purpose of determining whether or not the suit falls within the amount in controversy of the court.³¹ This provision regarding aggregation of the claims of multiple plaintiffs applies only to plaintiffs, not those of other parties, such as multiple counterclaimants.³²

A single plaintiff's multiple claims are aggregated for purposes of determining the amount in controversy.³³ Where the plaintiff asserts a single claim by way of multiple alternate theories, the amount in controversy is determined by the theory that would yield the largest award.³⁴ These rules for aggregation of a single claimant's multiple claims also apply to counter, cross, and third-party claimants.³⁵

21-2:2 Presumption in Favor of Jurisdiction

District courts presume in favor of jurisdiction unless the absence of jurisdiction is affirmatively demonstrated by the pleadings.³⁶ This presumption has even been applied to cases filed in statutory county court, a court of limited jurisdiction.³⁷ Even if the pleadings never establish a jurisdictional amount, the amount may be established during trial.³⁸

With respect to determining whether immunity deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction, the jurisdictional analysis can be more rigorous, as the Texas Supreme Court explained in a 2018 decision:

Immunity from suit may be asserted through a plea to the jurisdiction or other procedural vehicle, such as a motion for summary judgment. A jurisdic-tional plea may challenge the pleadings, the existence of jurisdictional facts, or both. When a jurisdictional plea challenges the pleadings, we determine if the plaintiff has alleged facts affirmatively demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. If, however, the plea challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we must move beyond the pleadings and consider evidence when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues, even if the evidence implicates both subject matter jurisdiction and the merits of a claim.³⁹

If the plea challenges the jurisdictional facts, the inquiry resembles the summary judgment procedure. If the plaintiff's jurisdictional facts are challenged with evidence, the...