28 U.S.C. § 1332(A)(2)

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Jiri Mucha v. King
  792 F.2d 602· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-22 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the defendant's arguments regarding statute of limitations and abandonment were unpersuasive, and the district court's finding that the plaintiff had not been dispossessed of the painting until 1979 was not clearly erroneous.
• Nikki McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  5 F.4th 1309· 11th Cir.· 2021-07-27 ·cited 44×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by dismissing the case sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were sufficient to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement
• Moheb A. H. al Sadat v. Heinz Mertes
  615 F.2d 1176· 7th Cir.· 1980-02-19 ·cited 38×
  A naturalized U.S. citizen domiciled abroad, who also holds citizenship in a foreign state, cannot invoke alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) if the opposing party is a U.S. citizen domiciled in the same state, due to the complete diversity rule.
• Caribbean Mills, Inc. v. Kramer
  392 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-26 ·cited 28×
• Gilson v. Republic OF Ireland
  787 F.2d 655· D.C. Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that a non-exclusive patent licensee cannot sue for infringement and that the plaintiff failed to establish trade secrets on the record before the district court.
• Neidhart v. Neidhart S.A.
  510 F.2d 760· D.C. Cir.· 1975-01-10 ·cited 12×
  Section 293 of the Patent Codification Act is not available for service of process in disputes concerning patent license agreements, as these are considered contract disputes rather than proceedings affecting patent validity or infringement.
• Chick KAM Choo v. Exxon Corp.
  764 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 11×
  Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) cannot be invoked in a suit between an individual alien plaintiff and an alien corporation with its principal place of business in a U.S. state.
• Joseph Muller Corp. Zurich v. Societe Anonyme de Gerance et D'Armement
  451 F.2d 727· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while a Franco-Swiss treaty does not bar suits between nationals of those countries in U.S. courts under Rule 17(b), comity requires dismissal of a contract claim lacking federal jurisdiction, but not an antitrust claim due to overriding U.S. public policy.
• Stewart v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
  528 F. Supp. 3d 1267· M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of a foreign state for diversity purposes, and thus the case must be remanded.
• Rookard v. Mexicoach
  680 F.2d 1257· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that triable issues of material fact exist regarding Mexicoach's duty to warn and potential affirmative misrepresentation, precluding summary judgment.
• Simon Holdings PLC Grp. of Cos. U.K. v. Klenz
  878 F. Supp. 210· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-02 ·cited 3×
  A foreign-chartered corporation with its principal place of business in the United States is considered both an alien and a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes, thus destroying complete diversity when suing or being sued by another alien.
• Cohn v. Rosenfeld
  733 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-25 ·cited 3×
  A Liechtenstein anstalt is considered a citizen or subject of Liechtenstein for diversity jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and lost profits are recoverable damages for breach of contract if foreseeable.
• MA v. Cont'l Bank N.A.
  905 F.2d 1073· 7th Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The bank's transfer of funds to a foreign receiver, even without a formal ancillary proceeding, did not cause the plaintiff's loss because the receiver was legitimate and the transfer was lawful.
• Lovers Indus. USA, LLC v. Lovers Indus. Corp. B.V.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's members, who are dual US-Netherlands citizens, are domiciled in the Netherlands, destroying complete diversity.
• Hancock v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  The Court held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff, a United States citizen domiciled abroad, cannot establish diversity jurisdiction with a citizen of a state.
• Petitphait v. Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-25
  The court held that a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state as a defendant cannot establish diversity jurisdiction, even if the defendant is a corporation with a principal place of business in that state.
• Doe v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contained shotgun pleadings in Counts 3 and 4, warranting dismissal with prejudice, and denied leave to amend.
• Balis v. Martin
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-04
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
• Clear Transfer Techs. OU v. Ipay Total Ltd
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-12
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, requiring further amendment.
• Impuls I.D. Internacional v. Psion-Teklogix Inc.
  234 F. Supp. 2d 1267· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-22
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties lacked complete diversity and there was no federal question jurisdiction under the CISG.
• Depex Reina 9 P'ship v. Tex. Int'l Petroleum Corp.
  897 F.2d 461· 10th Cir.· 1990-02-27
  The court held that a party can raise a lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of a case, even after a prior appeal and remand, if the case is still pending and no final judgment has merged the jurisdictional finding. Therefore, the district court erred in denying TIPCO