alien diversity . also "no parking" torts Forum

[redsox550]

1. plantiff sues company X in federal court for 100g (no Federal Q). P is born, raise, domicilied in canada. company X was incorportated in canada and has principal place of business in florida no diversity? correct?


2. bob decides to park in a parking spot that says in big letters "do not park here", this eventually leads to causing damage. my specific Q is, is the "no parking" sign a statute for neg per se purposes. or does it just contribute to a regular neg claim. what does the sign add to the Q?
(i know this is an incomplete Q, but i just want to know the effect the sign could have in any case)

[goaheadualright]

1. not sure when the P is an alien - good question...what was the cause of action here? http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien

2. the sign might mean he's trespassing?

[paulshortys10]

pretty sure there's not diversity there. I believe when you have aliens on both sides, you also need state citizens on both sides.

[SemperLegal]

I think under 1332(a)(2) There is diversity since Corp. is a citizen of Florida and has a case against "subjects of a foreign state" who is not "a permanent residen[t] in the United States . . . domiciled in the same State"

There would be no negligence per se, since the No Parking sign is not a law, statute, or administrative decree. If it was a town made sign, (backed by a law) than it would create negligence per se if the damages that were caused were the type of damages that were in mind when the no parking sign was made, and if the person who was harmed was the class of people that the sign was created to protect.

So Neg per se if the town put the sign showcasing that it was against the law to park in front of hydrants, someone parked there, and a house burned down in the time it took the firemen to break the window and run the hose in.

[redsox550]

"pretty sure there's not diversity there. I believe when you have aliens on both sides, you also need state citizens on both sides."

but the companys principal place of business is florida , so techinically they arnt a complete alien????

[paulshortys10]

I have the following Hypo which turned out was No Diversity

NY Corp with ppb in Berlin vs Frenchman and NJ- NO once again involves suit with foreigner against foreigner.

This is what I'm basing my no on, but i'm not 100 %

[redsox550]

well a frenchman, cant have multiple citizenship for diversity purposes. so in that hypo, he coudlnt be both a french ciitzen and a NJ one. so if he was french then it would be foregn vs foreign. a company can have multiple diversity places

[Blessedassurance]

I think under 1332(a)(2) There is diversity since Corp. is a citizen of Florida and has a case against "subjects of a foreign state" who is not "a permanent residen[t] in the United States . . . domiciled in the same State"

While Art III arguably only requires minimal diversity, U.S.C. 1332 has been interpreted to require complete diversity (Strawbridge v. Curtis).

Corp is also a citizen of Canada (place of incorporation) (see 1332), as such, there is no complete diversity.

[SemperLegal]

I think under 1332(a)(2) There is diversity since Corp. is a citizen of Florida and has a case against "subjects of a foreign state" who is not "a permanent residen[t] in the United States . . . domiciled in the same State"

While Art III arguably only requires minimal diversity, U.S.C. 1332 has been interpreted to require complete diversity (Strawbridge v. Curtis).

Corp is also a citizen of Canada (place of incorporation) (see 1332), as such, there is no complete diversity.

There may be complete diversity, or at least something approximately close enough to fall under the statute. Looking at 1332(a)(2) "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State"

I think that, could, mean that since Plaintiff is not a permanent resident, all that matters is that one party is a citizen of a state, and the other is a foreign subject.

[bk1]

There may be complete diversity, or at least something approximately close enough to fall under the statute. Looking at 1332(a)(2) "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State"

I think that, could, mean that since Plaintiff is not a permanent resident, all that matters is that one party is a citizen of a state, and the other is a foreign subject.

You're bolding the exception (that doesn't allow for diversity jx).

[SemperLegal]

There may be complete diversity, or at least something approximately close enough to fall under the statute. Looking at 1332(a)(2) "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State"

I think that, could, mean that since Plaintiff is not a permanent resident, all that matters is that one party is a citizen of a state, and the other is a foreign subject.

You're bolding the exception (that doesn't allow for diversity jx).

Then, I'm confused. Since one of the two parties is not lawfully admitted for permanent resident, shouldn't this case not qualify for the exception that there is 1332 jurisdiction over citizens of a state and subjects of a foreign state.

I think Crim law has made me incapable of understanding what sentences actually mean.

[Blessedassurance]

There may be complete diversity, or at least something approximately close enough to fall under the statute. Looking at 1332(a)(2) "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State"

I think that, could, mean that since Plaintiff is not a permanent resident, all that matters is that one party is a citizen of a state, and the other is a foreign subject.

There isn't complete diversity. Complete diversity means no plaintiff can be from the same state as any defendant (there's an exception for class actions that is not applicable in this case). 1332 specifically states that a corporation is a citizen of its place of incorporation and its principal place of business. It means the corporation in this case is both a citizen of Canada and Florida.

Since it's Corp x (FL + CA) v. Dude (CA) there isn't complete diversity since there are aliens on both sides of the "v".

Yes it (unbolded part) means a citizen of a state versus a foreign subject. But that is not we have here, we have a citizen of both a state and a foreign state versus a citizen of a foreign state. That is not complete diversity. There is also another form of diversity that is not complete but still permissible. This is when there's a dispute between citizens of different states in which foreign subjects are joined.

[laxbrah420]

The major question is whether same foreign state = not diverse. To me, 1332(a) isn't clear on that. 1332(a)(1) says "different states" which is distinct from foreign states. Is there a different rule/statute I should look to, or is there a case that makes your analysis clear?

Edit:

We must consider whether [foreigners on both sides of the litigation] destroys the complete diversity of citizenship that is a prerequisite to maintaining a suit under the diversity jurisdiction. . . . The presence of citizens of different states on both sides
of a lawsuit obviously does not destroy diversity; it is the precondition of diversity. So why should the presence of citizens of foreign states destroy diversity unless . . .they are citizens of the same foreign state?

Some case I found on google from S.D. Indiana citing Allendale Mutual Ins. v. Bull Data Systems, 10 F.3d 425, 427-28 (7th Cir. 1993)

Seems to suggest it's pretty obviously not diversity if it's same foreign state so I'll just role with that

Double edit: It appears I'm retarded and aliens from two different foreign states seem to not even be diverse in most cases?
But non-resident alien vs resident alien, courts are split. Emmanuel's example is Spaniard domiciled in florida sues a canadian... that's a split. I'd think I'd lean towards diversity in that case because you're just supposed to be a citizen of the state you're domiciled in. Corporations with two citizenships though is way trickier. I'd think courts would be split on that unless the foreign state is the same for both opposing parties, as in our case, and then you'd have no diversity

[Bildungsroman]

I think some of the confusion ITT right now is caused by the recent change to the diversity statute. The change to 1332(c), changing from a corporation being a citizen of "any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business" to "a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business," was designed in part to address this split in the courts that happened with companies incorporated in one country and having its PPB in the US, or vice versa. The statute as written now makes clear that there is no diversity jurisdiction in the following case (among others): foreigner domiciled abroad sues corporation incorporated abroad, even if the corporation also has its PPB in the US.

Some red herrings to be sure to avoid:
1. It doesn't matter what the foreign country is for purposes of diversity. An Illinois man and a Frenchman suing a Texan and a Frenchman still has complete diversity and will be covered by 1332(a)(3). So in the example OP posted, it doesn't affect the analysis that they're both Canadian.

2. 1332(a)(3) requires each side to have additional foreign parties. The fact that a corporation incorporated abroad with a PPB in the US is a citizen of both the foreign country and its US state of PPB doesn't mean that it can be the lone defendant against two plaintiffs, one Texas and one Canadian, and still get into federal court under 1332(a)(3).

Disclaimer: 2L, been a while since I took civ pro II but we learned it under the new statute.

[laxbrah420]

thanks dude

[myung76]

wait so in simple dummy terms

can a foreign party (who also has citizenship in a US state due to incorporation or permanent residency) vs a foreign party count as complete diversity?

the rule stated in dummy terms is no alien can be versus an alien unless they are additional parties to parties which are citizens of US.

so do these count as diversity?

1. Canada Corporation which has state of incorp in Florida sues a Canadian Resident

2. Canada Corporation which state of incorp in Florida sues a Canadian resident AND an Ohio Resident

[Blessedassurance]

can a foreign party (who also has citizenship in a US state due to incorporation or permanent residency) vs a foreign party count as complete diversity?

First you need to separate individuals and corporations for purposes of analysis. Two different categories. Permanent residence is not citizenship. While a corporation can be a citizen of multiple places, the foreign party (individual) is an alien albeit a permanent resident.

The answer to the above is no:

(i)The corporation is also a citizen of a foreign state so that is not complete diversity.

(ii)A permanent resident is an alien, so there is no diversity. Note however, that there is no diversity in a case between a citizen of a state and a permanent resident domiciled in the same state. That is the exception in 1332(a)(2).

so do these count as diversity?

1. Canada Corporation which has state of incorp in Florida sues a Canadian Resident

What do you mean by "Canada Corporation" and "Canadian resident"? If the corporation is incorporated in Florida, it's an American Corporation. If you mean the company's principal place of business is Canada, and the individual is a Canadian citizen, then no. There's a difference between "domicile", "residence" and "citizen" that matters.

2. Canada Corporation which state of incorp in Florida sues a Canadian resident AND an Ohio Resident

The answer to the question you meant to ask is no, but the terms you use ("Canada corporation" "resident") makes the question more complicated than you originally intended, see above.