Whether a federal court can disregard the requirement of minimal diversity to exercise jurisdiction over a case that undisputedly lacks diversity, based on the court's belief that policy interests underlying CAFA support an exercise of federal jurisdiction

QUESTION PRESENTED The United States Constitution requires that parties have at least minimally diverse citizenship for a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction over a particular matter. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530-31 (1967). The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) similarly provides that federal courts can exercise only exercise diversity jurisdiction over class action lawsuits in which, inter alia, at least one member of the proposed class of plaintiffs is diverse from one defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The question presented is whether a federal court can disregard the requirement of minimal diversity to exercise jurisdiction over a case that undisputedly lacks diversity, based on the court’s belief that policy interests underlying CAFA support an exercise of federal jurisdiction.