Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02397/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02397-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dror Darel
Defendant
Orly Darel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The complaint improperly alleged only that the plaintiff was a citizen of the Dominion

of Canada and that the defendant was a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Orly Darel, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-2397-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER and OPINION

Dror Darel, )

)

Defendant. ) )

In an order (doc. #11) entered on October 25, 2006, the Court dismissed

the complaint in this action, wherein the plaintiff seeks to domesticate a judgment

for child and spousal support issued by a Canadian court, because the complaint

failed to properly allege the existence of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the

only alleged basis for subject matter jurisdiction.1

 The Court ordered the plaintiff

to file an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis and warned 

the plaintiff that this action would be dismissed for lack of subject matter

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 2 -

jurisdiction if she did not do so.

In her Amended Complaint (doc. #13), filed on November 9, 2006, the

plaintiff alleges that subject matter jurisdiction is present pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a)(2) because both she and the defendant are citizens of the Dominion of

Canada and of the State of Israel and that, "upon information and belief", the

defendant "is a resident, citizen and domiciliary of the State of Arizona, and is in

the United States either as a resident alien of the United States or holds a visa

and resides in the County of Maricopa."

Having reviewed the jurisdictional allegations of the Amended Complaint,

the Court sua sponte finds as a matter of law that this action must be dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. v. Fix

Entertainment Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (District court may

sua sponte dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without notice

and an opportunity to respond.)

Although the federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over an action

between "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state," 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(2), they clearly do not have diversity jurisdiction under Article III of the

Constitution over an action in which a foreign plaintiff sues a foreign defendant. 

Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991

(9th Cir. 1994); see also, Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809). 

In this case, both parties are clearly alleged to be citizens of foreign states.

The Court concludes that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action even

if the Amended Complaint is liberally construed as alleging that the defendant is a

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 The Amended Complaint in fact alleges only that the defendant may be a "resident

alien". The Court does not know if the plaintiff equates being a "resident alien" with being a

"permanent resident alien". They are not in fact the same thing.

3

 The 1988 amendment to § 1332 deems permanent resident aliens to be citizens of

the state in which they are domiciled.

- 3 -

permanent resident alien domiciled in Arizona.2 While the Court recognizes that

one circuit court of appeals has concluded that diversity jurisdiction based on

alienage can exist under § 1332 between a foreign national and a permanent

resident alien pursuant to the amendment to § 1332 enacted by the Judicial

Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 19883

, see Singh v. Daimler-Benz

AG, 9 F.3d 303 (3rd Cir. 1993), given the lack of authority on this issue from the

Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, the Court adopts as better reasoned the

view of those courts that have concluded that the amendment to § 1332 did not

enlarge diversity jurisdiction so as to encompass actions between non-resident

aliens and permanent resident aliens. See e.g., Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, F.3d

 , 2006 WL 3093644 (7th Cir. Nov. 2, 2006) (Court, noting that the best reading

of the amendment to § 1332 is that permanent resident aliens have both state

and foreign citizenship, concluded that there was no diversity jurisdiction because

a member of the plaintiff limited liability company was a permanent resident alien

who retained his foreign citizenship and some of the defendants were alien

corporations.); Saadeh v. Farouki, 107 F.3d 52, 61 (D.C.Cir. 1997) ("We ...

conclude that the 1988 amendment to § 1332 did not confer diversity jurisdiction

over a lawsuit between an alien on one side, and an alien and a citizen on the

other side, regardless of the residence status of the aliens."); Matsuda v. Wada,

128 F.Supp.2d 659, 667 (D.Hawaii 2000) (Court concluded that there was no

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 4 -

diversity jurisdiction over an action between a plaintiff who was a citizen of Japan

and a defendant who was both a citizen of Japan and a permanent resident alien

domiciled in Hawaii notwithstanding the 1988 amendment to § 1332.) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this action is sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 14 Filed 11/15/06 Page 4 of 4