The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered the effect of dual citizenship on the diversity required for subject matter jurisdiction and held that under two scenarios there was no diversity. In Swiger v. Allegheny Energy 540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2008) plaintiff, a West Virginia resident sued several defendants including a partnership where one of its partners is a dual American-British citizen domiciled in a foreign state. The district court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The court pointed out the well settled rule when in the context of partnerships the complete diversity requirement for jurisdiction demanded that all partners be diverse from all parties on the opposing side. The court held that if a partnership has among its partners any American citizen who is domiciled abroad, the partnership cannot sue (or be sued) in a federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Since the partnership had a stateless partner there is no diversity of citizenship and the court said that the district court correctly held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also argued that there was alienage jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals disposed of this contention as follows:
“Swiger argues that even if jurisdiction based on diversity of state citizenship is lacking, the district court nevertheless had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.? 1332 (a)(2), because Lubar, as a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom would still be a “citizen or subject of a foreign state,” and as such, Lubar would be diverse from Swiger within the meaning of ? 1332(a)(2). That is, complete diversity would exist because Swiger is a citizen of West Virginia and Lubar is a citizen of the United Kingdom. After this appeal was briefed, which we held “that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, only the American nationality of a dual national is recognized.” See Frett-Smith, 511 F.3d at 400. Because Lubar is a United States citizen, any reliance on ? 1332(a)(2)’s alienage jurisdiction would be in error. Id. At 400 (p. 185).