Facts
- Margaret Antonier, a Canadian citizen, lived in Florida under an E-2 treaty investor (nonimmigrant) visa.
- Antonier sued her ex-husband, Robert Miller, and their sons, Rodney Miller and Frederick Miller, each a Canadian citizen residing in Canada.
- The defendants were sued as trustees of the Robert Miller Spousal Trust.
- The spousal trust was created in 2005, and Antonier alleged she was the sole income beneficiary.
- Antonier alleged she had not received trust income and sought an accounting.
- On May 20, 2011, Antonier filed a single-count complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida invoking subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
- Robert Miller moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the case was exclusively between aliens; he also raised forum non conveniens as an alternative basis for dismissal.
- Antonier argued her treaty investor status was similar to permanent residence and that, under the version of § 1332(a) then in effect, she should be treated as a citizen of Florida because permanent-resident aliens were “deemed” citizens of their state of domicile.
- While the case was pending, Congress amended § 1332(a) (effective January 6, 2012) by removing the “deemed a citizen” language for permanent residents and adding a limitation addressing cases involving U.S. citizens and permanent residents domiciled in the same state.
Issues
- Whether the court had diversity/alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) over a trust-accounting suit where all parties were Canadian citizens, and the plaintiff lived in Florida on an E-2 visa.
- Whether an E-2 treaty investor visa holder could be treated as an alien “admitted for permanent residence,” so as to be treated as a citizen of the state of domicile for § 1332(a) purposes (under the statute as it existed when the complaint was filed).
- Whether the 2012 amendment to § 1332(a) changed the jurisdictional analysis for this already-filed case.
Decision
- The court granted Robert Miller’s motion to dismiss to the extent it sought dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1332(a) because the dispute was between aliens only.
- The court rejected Antonier’s argument that E-2 treaty investor status qualified as being “admitted to the United States for permanent residence” under § 1332(a).
- The court noted the intervening statutory amendment but concluded that jurisdiction was absent even under the earlier, more favorable version of the statute.
- The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the court did not reach the forum non conveniens argument or address other pending motions.
Legal Principles
- Federal diversity/alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) does not cover suits exclusively between foreign citizens when no U.S. citizen is a party.
- For § 1332(a), an alien is treated as a state citizen only if the alien has been “admitted to the United States for permanent residence” (a term tied to lawful permanent resident status), not merely because the alien resides in a state or holds a long-term nonimmigrant visa.
- An E-2 treaty investor visa is a nonimmigrant classification and does not, by itself, make the holder a lawful permanent resident for purposes of § 1332(a).
- When subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, the federal court must dismiss without reaching discretionary or merits-related grounds for dismissal.
Conclusion
Antonier, a Canadian citizen in Florida on an E-2 visa, sued Canadian trustees in federal court for an accounting of a spousal trust, but the court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because an E-2 visa does not amount to admission for permanent residence and, with aliens on both sides, § 1332(a) did not provide diversity or alienage jurisdiction.