## Facts

- Clifton G. Swiger, a resident of West Virginia, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting several Pennsylvania state-law claims against Allegheny Energy, Inc.; Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC; Allegheny Energy Services Corp.; and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
- Swiger invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging the parties were completely diverse.
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP was an unincorporated partnership whose partners were domiciled in Pennsylvania, New York, and California, and included a partner who was a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom but domiciled in the United Kingdom.
- None of the defendants was domiciled in West Virginia.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the partner who was a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad could not be counted as a citizen of any U.S. state for § 1332 purposes and therefore destroyed diversity jurisdiction for the partnership.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Swiger appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) over a case involving a partnership when one of the partnership’s partners is a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad.
2. Whether alienage jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) exists when that partner is also a dual U.S.–foreign citizen domiciled in a foreign country.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that because a partnership takes the citizenship of all of its partners, the presence of a partner who is a U.S. citizen domiciled abroad prevents the partnership from meeting § 1332’s requirements.
- The court rejected the argument that the partner’s foreign nationality could supply alienage jurisdiction, holding that for diversity purposes a dual U.S.–foreign citizen is treated only as a U.S. citizen.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.
- An individual’s state citizenship for diversity purposes is determined by domicile.
- A U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a “citizen of a State” and is also not treated as a “citizen or subject of a foreign state” for purposes of § 1332; such a person cannot be used to satisfy either diversity or alienage jurisdiction.
- Unincorporated associations (including partnerships and similar entities) are not “citizens” in their own right under § 1332; their citizenship is that of each partner or member.
- If any partner’s status prevents satisfaction of § 1332, the partnership cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction (or be sued in federal court on that basis) because complete diversity cannot be established through the partnership.
- For a dual U.S.–foreign citizen, federal courts consider only the person’s U.S. citizenship when analyzing jurisdiction under § 1332; the person’s foreign citizenship cannot be used to create alienage jurisdiction.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction is mandatory and may be raised at any time; when it is missing, dismissal is required.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, as a partnership, had the citizenship of all its partners, including a dual U.S.–U.K. citizen domiciled in the United Kingdom who was treated only as a U.S. citizen and not as a citizen of any U.S. state for § 1332 purposes; this prevented both diversity and alienage jurisdiction, so dismissal was proper.


Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179 (2008)