Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity among plaintiffs and defendants. Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 F. App'x 493 (9th Cir. 2007) (cited pursuant to Ninth Cir. Rule App. Procedure 36-3); Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 295 (9th Cir. 1989) ("diversity must be complete"). There are of course additional bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Further, “[u]nder the plain language of § 1332(a)(3), for jurisdiction to exist there must be both United States citizen plaintiffs and United States citizen defendants.” Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed.Appx. 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Transure, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 766 F.2d 1297, 1298 (9th Cir.1985)). When a United States citizen is “on only one side of the litigation, § 1332(a)(3) does not apply.
Generally, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to cases governed by federal law (federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331), cases where the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332), or cases in which the United States is a party (28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 & 1346).Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity among plaintiffs and defendants. Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed.Appx. 493 (9th Cir. 2007) (cited pursuant to Ninth Cir. Rule 36-3); Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 295 (9th Cir. 1989) (“diversity must be complete”).
Jingil LEE, Estate Representative for Jin Ah Lee, Deceased, et al., petitioners, v. ANC CAR RENTAL CORP., et al.Case below, 220 Fed.Appx. 493. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
While the Complaint refers to a "Friendship Treaty," it is unclear to which treaty Plaintiff is referring and whether his claims arise under any treaty of the United States. See id.; see also, e.g., Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd., 951 F.3d 124, 125 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Israel and finding that it did not confer federal jurisdiction in that case); Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 F. App'x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Korea and holding it did not confer original jurisdiction on federal courts). As the Magistrate Judge stated in his Order [4], Plaintiff has provided no information about this treaty or how any of Defendants' actions are related to it.
While the Complaint refers to a "Friendship Treaty," it is unclear to which treaty Plaintiff is referring and whether his claims arise under any treaty of the United States. See id.; see also, e.g., Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd., 951 F.3d 124, 125 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Israel and finding that it did not confer federal jurisdiction in that case); Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 F. App'x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering the 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Korea and holding it did not confer original jurisdiction on federal courts). As the Magistrate Judge stated in his Order [3], Plaintiff has provided no information about this treaty or how any of Defendants' actions are related to it.
"[T]here is no explicit grant of jurisdiction in a case where one side consists of only citizens of a foreign state and the other side consists of both citizens of a [S]tate and of a foreign state." Wu v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1062 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (citing, e.g., Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed. Appx. 493 (9th Cir. 2007) (diversity lacking where Korean plaintiffs sued defendants who were citizens of Korea, Florida, Delaware and Michigan); U.S. Motors v. General Motors Europe, 519 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (finding no diversity jurisdiction where plaintiffs were citizens of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Netherlands and defendant was a citizen of Switzerland). For purposes of determining diversity, "the citizenship of a limited partnership is the citizenship of each of its partners, both general and limited."
See FAC ¶¶ 2-3, 12, 14. While diversity jurisdiction may exist in certain cases involving foreign parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity requirement met between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state” and between “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties”), there is no jurisdiction in cases involving an alien plaintiff suing an alien defendant, even if there are citizen defendants present. SeeJungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp. , 220 Fed.Appx. 493, 495 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissing case where foreign plaintiffs sued foreign and U.S. citizen defendants) (citing Faysound, Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. , 878 F.2d 290, 294–95 (9th Cir.1989) ); Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A. , 20 F.3d 987, 990–91 (9th Cir.1994) (“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not encompass a foreign plaintiff suing foreign defendants.”) (citing Cheng v. Boeing Co. , 708 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1983) ). Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction in the instant case.
The Ninth Circuit finds a lack of complete diversity in cases where aliens are on both sides of the litigation. See, e.g., Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 F. App'x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007). "Diversity jurisdiction does not encompass foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants."
Accordingly, complete diversity of citizenship does not exist and this case must be remanded. See Jungil Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., 220 Fed. Appx. 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that "aliens may not be on both sides of the litigation" and finding a lack of diversity where the plaintiffs and one defendant were Korean nationals). C. Costs and Expenses Will Not Be Awarded