## Facts

- Nigerian citizens were injured while riding as passengers in a taxicab allegedly owned by a Virginia cab company and driven by an individual later identified as a Ghanaian citizen.
- Plaintiffs filed a personal-injury action in federal district court invoking alienage/diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The complaint alleged plaintiffs’ Nigerian citizenship and the corporate defendant’s Virginia incorporation, but did not allege the driver’s citizenship (at most indicating unknown residence/whereabouts).
- The corporate defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the failure to allege the driver’s citizenship and the absence of complete diversity.
- Plaintiffs did not timely oppose the motion, seek an extension, or request leave to amend (including by dropping the driver as a party).

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is jurisdictionally defective when it fails to allege the citizenship (as opposed to residence) of a defendant.
2. Whether § 1332 permits subject-matter jurisdiction when foreign citizens appear on both sides of the case (foreign plaintiffs and a foreign defendant), even if another defendant is a U.S. citizen/corporation.
3. Whether the district court could dismiss after treating an unopposed jurisdictional motion as conceded under local rules.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to plead facts establishing § 1332 jurisdiction because they did not allege the driver’s citizenship.
- Plaintiffs’ later concession that the driver was a Ghanaian citizen confirmed that aliens were present on both sides, defeating complete diversity and independently precluding § 1332 jurisdiction.
- The district court acted within its authority in treating the unopposed motion as conceded under local rules, particularly where the motion raised a threshold jurisdictional defect.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity and alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 require complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.
- Alienage jurisdiction does not lie when foreign citizens are present on both sides of the litigation, absent a statutory basis allowing that party alignment.
- The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden to plead and, if challenged, prove jurisdictional facts.
- Jurisdictional allegations must state citizenship, not merely residence; omission of a party’s citizenship is a defect supporting dismissal.
- A district court may enforce local rules by treating an unopposed motion as conceded, and it must dismiss when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs did not adequately plead the citizenship of all parties and, in any event, the presence of foreign citizens on both sides defeated complete diversity under § 1332, requiring dismissal for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.


Eze v. Yellow Cab Co. of Alexandria, Va., Inc., 782 F.2d 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1986)