U.S. statute provides in part for diversity jurisdiction where an action is between (1) citizens of different states; (2) citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; and (3) citizens of different states and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties.
The partnership consisted of (1) New York citizens and (2) U.S. citizens residing in France. Defendants were citizens of Delaware, New Zealand, and Australia. A question on jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship was raised.
Can the partnership be considered a citizen of New York such that there would be diversity jurisdiction?
The court granted the partnership's motion to remand. The court noted that for diversity jurisdiction, the partnership was considered to be a citizen of each state and foreign country of which its partners were citizens. The court also noted that the partners who resided in France were not citizens of France. They remained U.S. citizens; however, because of their foreign residence, they were not citizens of any state in the U.S. Therefore, the partnership included partners who were neither citizens of a state nor citizens of a foreign country. The court concluded that because the partnership included partners who did not fall into any categories recognized by federal diversity law, the partnership could not be subject to diversity jurisdiction.