to expanding federal jurisdiction in diversity cases.
In Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 367 U.S. 348, 349, 350-351, 81 S. Ct. 1570, 6 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1961), Mr. Justice Black states:
'It is true, * * * that the purpose and effect of the 1958 amendment were to reduce congestion in the Federal District Courts partially caused by the large number of civil cases that were being brought under the long-standing $ 3,000 jurisdictional rule. This effort to reduce District Court congestion followed years of study by the United States Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, as well as by the Congress. To accomplish this purpose the 1958 amendment took several different but related steps. It raised the requisite jurisdictional amount from $ 3,000 to $ 10,000 in diversity and federal question cases; it provided that a corporation is to be deemed a citizen not only of the State by which it was incorporated but also of the State where it has its principal place of business; and * * * it also * * * forbade the removal of state workmen's compensation cases from state courts to United States District Courts. By granting district judges a discretionary power to impose costs on a federal court plaintiff if he should 'recover less than the sum or value of $ 10,000,' the amendment further manifested a congressional purpose to discourage the trying of suits involving less than $ 10,000 in federal courts.'
Public policy requires that federal courts should not be asked to widen federal diversity jurisdiction. McCoy v. Siler, 205 F.2d 498, 500-501 (3d Cir. 1953). And as said in National Surety Corp. v. Chamberlain, 171 F.Supp. 591, 592 (N.D.Tex.1959);
'Where 'federal jurisdiction is doubtful' the Federal court should dismiss an action, since it 'is justified in assuming jurisdiction only if jurisdiction is clearly shown'. 1 Barron & Holtzoff Fed. Prac. and Proc. Sec. 109, p. 204-5.'
While the amount claimed in good faith by plaintiff determines the amount in controversy for jurisdiction purposes, 'this rule is subject to the exception that if the law as applied to the cause of action as pleaded results in a lesser amount, the claim will not sustain the court's jurisdiction.' National Surety Corp. v. City of Excelsior Springs, 123 F.2d 573, 576, 156 A.L.R. 422 (8th Cir. 1941).
The test for determining the amount in controversy is the pecuniary result to either party which the judgment would directly produce. Ronzio v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 116 F.2d 604, 605 (10th Cir. 1941). Because of the New Jersey limitation statute, the judgment in this case could never produce more than $ 10,000, insofar as defendant hospital is concerned.
'* * * If under the applicable state law it would be legally impossible to recover actual exemplary damages in the amount required for federal court jurisdiction, a claim in a complaint for the required amount will not confer jurisdiction.' Thompson v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, 83 F.Supp. 656, 658 (N.D.Iowa 1949).
Also, see General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Mostert, 131 F.2d 596 (5th Cir. 1942) wherein Texas workmen's compensation law provided that the maximum recovery on an ear injury was $ 3,000 (the federal jurisdictional amount in 1943); excess of $ 3,000 was not established, hence the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the court's jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the judicial policy to narrowly construe federal jurisdiction, coupled with the unmistakable fact and legal certainty that plaintiff does not have a reasonable expectation of recovering exclusive of interest and costs an amount within the jurisdiction of this court, compel us to grant defendant's motion by refusing jurisdiction against the Middlesex General Hospital. See 2 Moore's Federal Practice, P8.11, p. 1639 (2d Ed. 1960). Any other result would have the court indulging in fanciful fiction.
Submit an order in conformity herewith.