Federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff was a foreign citizen and at least two defendants were also considered foreign citizens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, while the complaint asserted no federal cause of action.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted one defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The plaintiff brought suit against several defendants, but the moving defendant argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because foreign citizens appeared on both sides of the dispute. It also maintained that the complaint did not present a federal question that could independently support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The court agreed. Federal diversity jurisdiction generally permits suits between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, but the statutory requirements are not satisfied when foreign citizens appear as opposing parties in the circumstances presented.
The plaintiff was a foreign citizen. The court also determined that two defendants, including the moving defendant, were considered foreign citizens for purposes of § 1332. Their presence on the opposing side of the litigation prevented the plaintiff from establishing diversity subject matter jurisdiction.
Nor could the plaintiff rely on federal question jurisdiction. The complaint did not plead a federal cause of action that would provide the court with jurisdiction under § 1331.
Because neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction existed, the court was required to dismiss the action. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the plaintiff free to pursue the claims in a court possessing jurisdiction.
The defendant also requested sanctions. Although the court characterized that request as not unreasonable, it was not persuaded that the circumstances warranted imposing sanctions on the plaintiff.
The court therefore granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while declining its request for sanctions.
Dismissed without prejudice.
The 13-page opinion is Nakagawa v. Nakayama, Lawyers Weekly No. 02-111146.
