107 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
Yeazell, pp. 236-239
Facts: The plaintiff is a Greek
citizen. The defendant is a permanent
resident of the
Procedural Posture: The defendant appealed on the merits. The Court of Appeals asked the parties to write briefs on jurisdiction.
Issue: Did Farouki qualify as a “citizen of a State” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)?
Rule: The statute states that at
least one of the parties in a dispute must be a “citizen of a State” in order
for the federal courts to have diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, the statute says that for the
purposes of the section in question “an alien admitted to the
Analysis: The court chooses to liberally interpret the statute because it feels that a literal reading would cause an undesirable and unintended result, that is, that federal diversity jurisdiction could exist over a dispute involving only foreign litigants.
court uses the legislative history to interpret the amendment to the statute as
a move to narrow federal diversity jurisdiction rather than broaden
it. The statute apparently was intended
to reduce the federal caseload. The
court finds that the statute was intended to eliminate federal diversity
jurisdiction between a
Conclusion: The case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.