Case: Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily
118 F. 3d 76 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1997)

Facts: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), Matimak Trading Co. is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state."

Procedure: United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Issue: Can a corporation based in Hong Kong be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction? Is Matimak Trading Co. a citizen or subject of a foreign state and therefore subject to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction?

Holding: (Vote: 2-1) No, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2)

Reasoning: (Altimari, McLaughlin, and Jacobs, Circuit Judges)

A. Rule: The courts ruled Matimak Trading Co. is not a citizen or subjects of a foreign state, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and there was no other foundation for jurisdiction over Marimak Trading Co. The district court properly dismissed Matimak Training Co.’s suit for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Application: The Article III constitutional grant of authority that was implemented under the Judiciary Act of 1789 used the terms “foreign” and “alien” instead of “subject” and “citizen.” Since aliens could be involved in litigation with a U.S. citizen, the Framers used this terminology to grant access to federal courts. That terminology was used to open U.S. courts to all foreigns without regard to the government they fall under. Diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a person who is “stateless” or has no affiliation. In order to ensure “a home” for companies The Companies Act of 1985 provides a corporate nationality in the country to which it is registered.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions Reasoning: Matimak Trading Co. cannot invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction because Matimak Trading Co. is not a citizen or subjects of a foreign state, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).