Shturman v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
Filing
26
ORDER Re: Jurisdiction(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on December 5, 2011. (slf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Lela Nadirashvili,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil No. 09-3014 (JNE/SER)
ORDER
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.,
Defendant.
Dr. Leonid Shturman1 brought this action against Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., for
breach of contract. He also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Dr. Shturman alleged that
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006) “because the action is
between a citizen of Minnesota and a resident of a foreign state and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” Dr. Shturman invoked § 1332(a)(2), which
provides that a district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in
controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between “citizens of a State
and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” Pursuant to its independent obligation to determine
whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1193 (2010),
the Court orders Lela Nadirashvili to show cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Walker v. Norwest Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 161 (8th Cir.
1997) (stating that the party that invokes diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of pleading the
citizenship of all parties).
1
In September 2011, the magistrate judge granted a motion to substitute Lela Nadirashvili
as plaintiff for her late husband, Dr. Shturman. “The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily
depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. AlfonzoLarrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989).
1
In the Complaint, Dr. Shturman alleged that Cardiovascular Systems is a Minnesota
corporation whose principal place of business is in Minnesota. He properly alleged that
Cardiovascular Systems is a citizen of Minnesota. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
Next, Dr. Shturman alleged that he “is a citizen of the United States and of Russia and
resides in Switzerland.” Several circuits have held that the foreign citizenship of an individual
who is a citizen of the United States and another country is not recognized for purposes of
§ 1332(a). See Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341 (11th Cir.
2011) (holding that “an individual who is a dual citizen of the United States and another nation is
only a citizen of the United States for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)”);
Büchel-Ruegsegger v. Büchel, 576 F.3d 451, 453-55 (7th Cir. 2009) (concluding that a dual
citizen of the United States and a foreign country may not sue a United States citizen under
§ 1332(a)(2)); Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 399-400 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that
“for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, only the American nationality of a dual national is
recognized”); Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 250 (5th Cir. 1996) (“[T]here is an emerging
consensus among courts that, for a dual national citizen, only the American citizenship is
relevant for purposes of diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”); Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.,
951 F.2d 504, 507 (2d Cir. 1991) (“Rich argues that, in any event, he was a dual national of both
America and Spain in 1982 and 1983, and as such was a foreign national for purposes of
diversity. We disagree.”). Consequently, it appears that this case is not between “citizens of a
State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), because Dr. Shturman’s
foreign citizenship is not recognized for present purposes and Cardiovascular Systems is a
citizen of Minnesota.
2
The Court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) provides that a district court has original
jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between “citizens of different States.” As noted above, Dr. Shturman
alleged that he “resides in Switzerland.” If Dr. Shturman was domiciled abroad when he brought
this action, jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1) does not exist. See, e.g., Newman-Green, Inc. v.
Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) (“In order to be a citizen of a State within the
meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and
be domiciled within the State.”); Büchel-Ruegsegger, 576 F.3d at 455 (“The Supreme Court has
held that an American citizen who moves abroad is not a citizen of any state for purposes of §
1332(a)(1). Because she lived in Switzerland when she filed her complaint, Vreni is not
considered a citizen of any state.” (citations omitted)); cf. Dubach v. Weitzel, 135 F.3d 590, 593
(8th Cir. 1998) (residence and domicile are not synonymous for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction).
In short, it appears that neither § 1332(a)(1) nor § 1332(a)(2) provides subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. Within seven days of the date of this Order, Nadirashvili shall show
cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2011
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?