In what situation can a case not be moved based on diversity jurisdiction?

A case cannot be moved based on diversity jurisdiction when a defendant is a citizen of the state where the action originated. Diversity jurisdiction grants federal courts the authority to hear cases where the parties are citizens of different states, provided the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

However, if any defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case was filed, the case does not meet the criteria for diversity jurisdiction. This principle is grounded in the desire to avoid the risk of bias that may arise if a case is moved to federal court when a party could arguably be disadvantaged by their local state court system. Therefore, even if other parties are citizens of different states, the presence of a local defendant prevents the case from being removed from state court to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

In contrast, if all parties were citizens of different states, that situation meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, and a case could potentially be moved. Similarly, if a case has been appropriately filed in federal court, it reveals that diversity jurisdiction may have potentially been met. Thus, the presence of a defendant who is a citizen of the state where the action originated is a decisive factor preventing the use of diversity jurisdiction in this context.