## Facts

- Benjamin Tagger, an Israeli citizen and lawful permanent resident domiciled in Brooklyn, New York, sued Strauss Group Ltd., an Israeli corporation headquartered in Israel.
- Tagger asserted state-law contract and tort claims based on allegations that Strauss initiated legal proceedings against him in Israel that prevented him from leaving Israel.
- Tagger invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), asserting his lawful permanent resident status permitted him to be treated as a New York citizen for diversity purposes.
- Tagger alternatively claimed jurisdiction based on the 1951 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Israel (FCN Treaty), arguing it guaranteed Israeli nationals access to U.S. courts.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (and alternatively referenced forum non conveniens), and Tagger appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) permits diversity jurisdiction when a lawful permanent resident alien domiciled in a U.S. state sues a nonresident alien corporation.
2. Whether the U.S.–Israel FCN Treaty independently supplies federal subject-matter jurisdiction for an Israeli national’s suit against an Israeli corporation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held § 1332(a)(2) does not allow diversity jurisdiction in an alien–alien dispute, even if the alien plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident domiciled in a U.S. state.
- The court held the FCN Treaty does not itself create federal jurisdiction; a plaintiff must still satisfy a statutory basis for jurisdiction (e.g., §§ 1331 or 1332).
- Because jurisdiction was absent, the court did not need to reach the alternative forum non conveniens ground.

## Legal Principles

- Diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may share citizenship (including foreign citizenship) with any defendant.
- For § 1332 analysis, lawful permanent residents remain “aliens” and are not treated as “citizens of a State” in a suit against a foreign citizen or foreign corporation.
- Federal subject-matter jurisdiction cannot rest on a Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaty’s court-access or national-treatment provisions absent an independent statutory jurisdictional grant.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the case was an alien–alien dispute outside § 1332(a)(2), and the U.S.–Israel FCN Treaty did not independently authorize federal subject-matter jurisdiction.


Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd., 951 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2020)