Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionAlienage JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionJurisdictional DiscoveryRule 12(b)(1)alienagecitizenship pleading

Facts

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was a New York corporation and that Rubinstein 'is not a citizen of the United States of America or of the State of New York.' Plaintiff later asserted by affidavit that Rubinstein was a citizen of the U.S.S.R. or Portugal, but Rubinstein denied that and claimed he was stateless. Norfolk Insurance Company asserted by affidavit that it was a Panamanian corporation not doing business in New York, while the parties' affidavits on that issue were also conflicting and inconclusive. The court was therefore confronted with disputed threshold jurisdictional facts concerning both subject matter and service-related jurisdiction.

Issue

Whether the complaint adequately alleged alienage jurisdiction by stating only that Rubinstein was not a citizen of the United States or New York, and, if not, how the court should proceed when the parties' affidavits on citizenship and on Norfolk's New York business activity are inconclusive. The court also considered whether it should immediately decide the suggested constitutional question whether a stateless person may be sued under alienage jurisdiction.

Rule

When federal jurisdiction depends on citizenship or alienage, the pleadings must distinctly and positively aver the citizenship facts on which jurisdiction depends; it is not enough that jurisdiction be inferable argumentatively, and in alienage cases the crucial averment is that a party is a citizen or subject of some foreign power. A defective jurisdictional averment may be cured by the whole record if the requisite citizenship is expressly averred elsewhere or facts constituting it appear with equal distinctness. Once challenged, the party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of proving jurisdictional facts by competent proof amounting to a preponderance of the evidence, and where affidavits are unsatisfactory or inconclusive, the court may permit discovery on those threshold issues before deciding dismissal motions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Fabricators, Inc., a corporation organized in Illinois, sues Aron Velas in federal court in Chicago. The complaint alleges only that Velas "is not a citizen of the United States or of Illinois" and invokes alienage jurisdiction.

Velas moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). How should the court rule?

Explanation. Alienage jurisdiction must rest on a distinct and positive averment that the relevant party is a citizen or subject of some foreign power. A merely negative allegation that the defendant is not a U.S. or forum-state citizen is jurisdictionally defective. The majority opinion insists that jurisdiction cannot rest on argumentative inference. (Derived from Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein (n.d.).)