Background
Plaintiff-Appellant Noa Kanealii appealed the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan ManaRa appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene as of right. The district court had found that the complaint did not state a federal question under the Supremacy Clause, the Hawaiian Treaty, the Alien Tort Statute, the Genocide Statute, or relevant United Nations conventions.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court explained that federal question jurisdiction requires a suit to arise under federal law, while diversity jurisdiction requires citizens of different states and an amount in controversy exceeding seventy-five thousand dollars. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss and alleged no valid basis for jurisdiction. Regarding the Alien Tort Statute claim, the court held that the statute grants jurisdiction only for torts committed by a noncitizen in violation of the law of nations or a treaty. The court found that the plaintiff’s argument that he is a Hawaiian national of the Hawaiian Islands was foreclosed by precedent establishing that Hawaii is not a sovereign nation. Because the plaintiff is an American citizen, the district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the Alien Tort Statute claim. Regarding the motion to intervene, the court held that the district court correctly denied the motion because the lack of subject matter jurisdiction terminated the proceeding, leaving no case or controversy in which to intervene.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that the Alien Tort Statute cannot be used by American citizens to sue for torts, even when asserting Hawaiian national status, and confirms that courts lack jurisdiction to entertain motions to intervene in cases where the underlying action has been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.