(a)Jurisdiction founded on diversity of citizenship and amount.
Plaintiff is a [citizen of the State of Connecticut] [1] [corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Connecticut having its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut] and defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York having its principal place of business in a State other than the State of Connecticut. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
(b)Jurisdiction founded on the existence of a Federal question.
The action arises under [the Constitution of the United States, Article X, Section X]; [the X Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section X]; [the Act of X, X Stat. X; U.S.C., Title X, § X]; [the Treaty of the United States (here describe the treaty)] [2] as hereinafter more fully appears.
(c)Jurisdiction founded on the existence of a question arising under particular statutes.
The action arises under the Act of XXX, XXX Stat. XXX; U.S.C., Title XXX, § XXX, as hereinafter more fully appears.
(d)Jurisdiction founded on the admiralty or maritime character of the claim.
This is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as hereinafter more fully appears. [If the pleader wishes to invoke the distinctively maritime procedures referred to in Rule
9(h), add the following or its substantial equivalent: This is an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule
9(h).]
[2] Use the appropriate phrase or phrases. The general allegation of the existence of a Federal question is ineffective unless the matters constituting the claim for relief as set forth in the complaint raise a Federal question.