## Facts

- Moheb A. H. al Sadat, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Egypt, sued drivers Heinz Mertes and Daniel E. Galganites and their insurers for negligence arising from an automobile accident in the early 1970s.
- Sadat filed suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 7, 1976, seeking $1 million and invoking only diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The complaint alleged Sadat was a U.S. citizen “presently residing” in Cairo, Egypt; defendants were alleged citizens of Wisconsin and Connecticut.
- Before naturalization, Sadat had lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in 1973 he became a U.S. citizen by naturalization.
- After naturalization, he accepted employment in Lebanon, sold the Pittsburgh family home, and informed the U.S. Embassy that Lebanon was his permanent residence.
- After conflict in Lebanon, he moved to Egypt in 1975; in Egypt he paid real estate taxes, registered at the U.S. Embassy as a permanent resident, and obtained an Egyptian driver’s license.
- Sadat was living in Egypt when he filed suit; he did not begin residing in Wisconsin until 1978.
- No party challenged jurisdiction until January 1979, when third-party defendants moved to dismiss; by then the state statute of limitations had run.

## Issues

1. Whether Sadat was a “citizen of a State” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) at the time of filing, based on domicile.
2. Whether Sadat could invoke alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) due to alleged dual U.S.–Egyptian nationality.
3. Whether defendants were estopped from contesting subject-matter jurisdiction because the challenge came after the state limitations period expired.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Sadat was not a “citizen of a State” because he was domiciled in Egypt when the complaint was filed.
- Sadat could not invoke alienage jurisdiction; for § 1332 purposes his dominant nationality was American.
- Defendants were not estopped; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver, consent, or estoppel and may be raised at any time.

## Legal Principles

- For § 1332(a)(1), U.S. citizenship alone is insufficient; the party must be a citizen of a particular state, determined by domicile.
- Domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain; intent to return to a former state without contemporaneous presence does not establish state domicile.
- A U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is neither a citizen of any U.S. state nor (for diversity purposes) an alien, and therefore falls outside both § 1332(a)(1) and § 1332(a)(2).
- In dual nationality cases, federal courts may treat a naturalized U.S. citizen as having an American dominant nationality for § 1332, defeating alienage jurisdiction.
- Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is nonwaivable and must result in dismissal whenever identified, regardless of reliance or limitations consequences.

## Conclusion

The court held that because Sadat was a naturalized U.S. citizen domiciled in Egypt when he sued, he could not establish diversity or alienage jurisdiction under § 1332, and the late-raised jurisdictional objection could not be barred by estoppel.


Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir. 1980)