1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

hav e no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes n eedless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

2 In his removal petition, Prot also stated that he was a "dualcitizen both of France and the United States however, significantly prior to the time that suit was filed against him he became UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 94-20084 Summary Calendar

_____________________

DAVID F. COURY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant,

VERSUS

ALAIN PROT,

Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

____________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-92-1915)

_____________________________________________________ (November 3, 1994)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

In April 1992, David Coury sued Alain Prot in Texas state

court seeking to enforce a contract arising out of Coury's

testimony as an expert witness in another proceeding. Prot removed

the action to federal district court, claiming that he was "a

citizen of France and is domiciled there". 2 Accordingly, becausedomiciled in France."

Of course, had Prot cla imed his domicile was Texas, removal

would have been improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (a defendant may not

remove a state action t o federal court if the defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is filed). In such a scenario, Coury would h ave been required to seek a remand of the action to state court within 30 days of the removal. 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c).

3 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000,

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

...

(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state ....

- 2 - Coury's domicile was in California, Prot claimed diversity of

citizenship existed pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), the

"alienage provision". 3

After suffering an adverse judgment, Prot assert ed that the

district court may have lacked subject matter jurisdiction, viz.

,

no diversity jurisdiction. Compounding the matter further, Prot

indicated, in post-judgment proceedings, that he had on ly been

residing temporarily in France, without any i ntention of

establishing a new permanent residence; he intended to return one

day to h is homestead in Texas. The problem arises because of

Prot's dual citizenship and his alleged domicile in France. If a

person is a United States citizen but domiciled abroad, then he is

not a citizen of any state; diversity jurisdiction under § 28

U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1) (cases between citizens of different states)

fails. S

mith v. Carter

, 545 F.2d 909 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 431

U.S. 955 (1977). If Prot's domicile was Texas, although removal- 3 -

may have been improper, subject matter jurisdiction would not be

lacking. Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp. , 405 U.S. 699, 702

(1972).

As is more than well-established, lack of subject matter

jurisdiction can be raised by any party at any time, even on

appeal. On this record, we cannot determine Prot's domicile at the

time the complaint was filed. We therefore remand this action to

the district court for it to determine whether subje ct matter

jurisdiction exists. V on Dunser v. Aronoff

, 915 F.2d 1071 (6th

Cir. 1990); see Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Pargas, Inc.

, 706 F.2d

633 (5th Cir. 1983).

If, after resolving the issue of Prot's domicile, see Ynclan

v. Department of the Air Force , 943 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.

1991), the district court finds that jursidiction does exist, the

action is to be returned to this court for disposition. If, on the

other hand, it finds jurisdiction lacking, the district court must,

of course, vacate its judgment.

The action is REMANDED for proce edings consistent with this

opinion.