Aguirre v. Nagel
| Decision Date | 28 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 25622. |
| Parties | Alicia AGUIRRE, by Alfredo Aguirre, Her Next Friend, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. NAGEL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Donnelly W. Hadden, Menendez & Hadden, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Forrest G. Shaw, Rouse, Selby, Webber, Dickinson & Shaw, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
At the pretrial conference in this case the question of jurisdiction was raised and the Court suggested that the parties submit briefs in support of their respective positions.
The situation presented here strikes one at first blush as being somewhat unusual, but upon examination of relevant statute and case law it appears to be what we might term one-of-a-kind. The cause of action sounds in tort for personal injuries incurred by the minor plaintiff when she was struck by defendant's motor vehicle. The defendant here is a citizen of the State of Michigan. The minor plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Michigan, having been born and raised in Michigan. It is, therefore, clear that 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (1) does not confer jurisdiction on this Court since it reads as follows:
This, however, does not end the matter. The pleadings and depositions on file show that the minor plaintiff is also a citizen of Mexico, her mother and father each being a Mexican citizen. We must, therefore, consider U.S.C.A. § 1332(a) (2) which confers jurisdiction on United States district courts where the controversy exceeds $10,000 and is between:
"(2) citizens of a State, and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof;"
It is the position of defendant that since both plaintiff and defendant are Michigan citizens diversity is destroyed and that this Court is, therefore, without jurisdiction to entertain the action. We agree with this position insofar as it relates to subsection (1) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a). Plaintiff is not a citizen of a State different from that of defendant.
It is the position of plaintiff that defendant is a citizen of a State and that she is a citizen of a foreign state and that she brings her action under subsection (2) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a).
We are forced to agree with plaintiff that diversity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sadat v. Mertes
...other than the district court below which have addressed the question have reached seemingly different conclusions. In Aguirre v. Nagel, 270 F.Supp. 535 (E.D.Mich.1967), the plaintiff, a citizen of the United States and the State of Michigan, sued a Michigan citizen for injuries sustained w......
-
Risk v. Kingdom of Norway
...asserting dual foreign citizenship to create diversity. Courts have reached different results in that situation. In Aguirre v. Nagel, 270 F.Supp. 535, 536 (E.D.Mich.1967), the district court stated that it did not "deem it good law to deny the existence of jurisdiction under 28 United State......
-
Von Dunser v. Aronoff
...and a citizen of one of the United States, despite his also being an American citizen. That was the position taken in Aguirre v. Nagel, 270 F.Supp. 535 (E.D.Mich.1967), where the court held that alienage jurisdiction existed in a case between a Michigan plaintiff with dual United States and......
-
Liakakos v. Cigna Corp.
...§ 1332(a)(2).... Liakakos v. Cigna Corp., slip op. at 2-3, No. 87-390 (E.D.Pa. August 16, 1988) 1988 WL 85704. In Aguirre v. Nagel, 270 F.Supp. 535 (E.D.Mich.1967), the plaintiff, a minor, was injured when she was struck by defendant's automobile. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were c......