Benjamin Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd.
951 F.3d 124
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Benjamin Tagger, an Israeli national living in Brooklyn as a lawful permanent resident, sued Strauss Group Ltd., an Israeli corporation, for common-law contract and tort claims based on litigation Strauss allegedly brought against him in Israel.
- Tagger invoked federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), alleging the required amount in controversy.
- Strauss moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (and also asserted forum non conveniens); the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and found Israel a more appropriate forum.
- The principal jurisdictional question was whether a lawful permanent resident alien domiciled in a U.S. state is a “citizen” of that state under § 1332(a)(2) when the defendant is a non‑resident alien.
- Tagger alternatively argued that the 1951 U.S.–Israel Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN Treaty) ‘‘access to courts’’ provision conferred federal jurisdiction.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held that § 1332(a)(2) does not confer diversity where a permanent resident alien sues a non‑resident alien, and the FCN Treaty did not create a right to federal jurisdiction beyond ordinary diversity rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1332(a)(2) treats a lawful permanent resident domiciled in a State as a state "citizen" for diversity against a foreign defendant | Tagger: his permanent‑resident domicile in New York makes him a New York "citizen" for diversity purposes | Strauss: permanent resident remains an "alien" for diversity when suing another alien; no complete diversity exists | Held: § 1332(a)(2) does not permit federal diversity jurisdiction where a permanent resident alien sues a non‑resident alien; both are aliens, so no diversity |
| Whether the U.S.–Israel FCN Treaty’s “access to courts” provision supplies federal jurisdiction | Tagger: FCN Treaty grants treaty nationals access to courts and thus supports federal jurisdiction in this case | Strauss: Treaty guarantees equal procedural treatment but does not create substantive federal jurisdiction or bypass diversity requirements | Held: Treaty provides procedural parity only and does not confer federal jurisdiction or relieve Tagger of the statutory diversity requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for jurisdictional facts and legal conclusions)
- Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 772 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2014) (requirement of complete diversity)
- Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (citizenship for diversity determined by domicile)
- Univ. Licensing Corp. v. Paola del Lungo S.p.A., 293 F.3d 579 (2d Cir. 2002) (two foreign parties are not diverse)
- Singh v. Daimler‑Benz AG, 9 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 1993) (circuit view on permanent residents and diversity under earlier statute)
- Saadeh v. Farouki, 107 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (contrasting circuit view on permanent residents and diversity under earlier statute)
- Blanco v. United States, 775 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1985) (interpretation of treaty "access to courts" provisions as guaranteeing procedural parity)
- Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) ("national treatment" and "most‑favored‑nation" treatment mean equal, not greater, rights)