Case: The Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily and D.A.Y Kids Sportswear Inc. (1996)
Facts: The plaintiff, Matimak Trading Co. Ltd. is a Hong Kong based establishment which is organized under the regulations of Hong Kong. It pursues to prosecute Albert Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc. positioned in the Southern District of New York for defilement of agreement. Matimak appealed the court’s variety jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1332(a)(2), which delivers authority over any civil action ascending between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.”
Procedure: The parties decide that the United States has not formally acknowledged Hong as a foreign state. Matimak claims that Hong Kong has received "de facto" acknowledgement as a foreign state by the United States, and thus its citizens may summon alienage jurisdiction. Matimak points to the United States' diplomatic and economic ties with Hong Kong as proof of this acknowledgment.
Issue(s): The principle issue is (1) Is Hong Kong a state? (2) Is Matimak a citizen of the United Kingdom? (3) Does US Code, title 28, § 1332(a)(2) allow stateless persons
to prosecute in a US federal court?
Reasoning: The majority came to its conclusion by establishing (1) Hong Kong is not acknowledged as a foreign state and the US State Department has informed the court that the US executives do not see Hong Kong as a state. (2) Mitmak was shaped as a corporation according to Hong Kong law; even though this law is based on a UK law; it is not enough of a link with the UK to say that Mitimak is a UK company. (3) Precedent and the plain language of the § 132(a)(2) reject stateless persons from bringing suits in US federal courts.
Concurring/dissenting opinions: Matimak is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state," under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and there is no other foundation for authority over Matimak's suit. The district court properly dismissed Matimak's suit for shortage of subject...