Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Sadat v. Mertes

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Diversity jurisdictionCitizenshipDomicileAlienage jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1332diversity jurisdictionalienage jurisdictiondomicile

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that he was both a United States citizen and a citizen of the Arab Republic of Egypt, where he was born in 1934, and that he became a naturalized United States citizen in 1973. His deposition and affidavit showed that he lived in Beirut from August 1973 to August 1975, in Cairo from August 1975 to March 1978, and that on June 7, 1976 his residence was Cairo, Egypt. The action was commenced on June 18, 1976. Plaintiff had not been domiciled in the United States since 1973.

Issue

Whether a naturalized United States citizen who was domiciled in Egypt when the action was filed could invoke federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 either as a citizen of a state or by claiming foreign citizenship based on his Egyptian birth. Also at issue was whether amendment of the pleading could cure the jurisdictional defect.

Rule

For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a natural person is a citizen of a state only if he is both a citizen of the United States and domiciled in a state. Jurisdiction is determined as of the date the action is commenced. A United States citizen domiciled in a foreign country is not a citizen of a state under § 1332, and a naturalized United States citizen may not assert foreign citizenship based on birth to satisfy § 1332(a)(2).

🔒

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.

Nadia Karim became a naturalized United States citizen in 2018. In 2025, while living indefinitely in Madrid, Spain and intending to remain there for the foreseeable future, she filed a contract action in federal court against Owen Pike, who is domiciled in Wisconsin.

Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity?

Explanation. State citizenship under § 1332 requires both United States citizenship and domicile in a state. A United States citizen domiciled abroad is not a citizen of any state and therefore cannot invoke diversity jurisdiction on that basis. The majority opinion treated such a person as outside § 1332's grant, even though the person remains a United States citizen. (Derived from Sadat v. Mertes (n.d.).)