494 U.S. 185, 199–200 (1990)
Arkoma Associates, a limited partnership organized under the laws of Arizona, brought suit on a contract dispute in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against C. Tom Carden and Leonard L. Limes, citizens of Louisiana.1 The defendants moved to dismiss the action, contending that one of Arkoma's limited partners was also a citizen of Louisiana.2 The District Court denied the motion but certified the question for interlocutory appeal, which the Fifth Circuit declined to accept.3
Magee Drilling Company subsequently intervened in the suit and, together with the original defendants, counterclaimed against Arkoma under Texas law.4 Following a bench trial, the District Court awarded Arkoma a money judgment plus interest and attorney's fees while dismissing the counterclaim as well as Magee's intervention and counterclaim.5 Carden, Limes, and Magee appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed.6
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioners.7
Whether, in a suit brought by a limited partnership, the citizenship of the limited partners must be taken into account to determine diversity of citizenship among the parties?8
Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) authorize federal diversity jurisdiction only where the controversy is between citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. The statute has been interpreted since Strawbridge v. Curtiss to demand complete diversity.9 For unincorporated artificial entities such as limited partnerships, citizenship is determined by reference to all members rather than by treating the entity itself as a citizen or by consulting only the citizenship of general partners.10
Yes. The rule requires that the citizenship of every member of an unincorporated association be consulted to establish complete diversity. Arkoma Associates, a limited partnership organized under Arizona law, filed a contract action in the Eastern District of Louisiana against Carden and Limes, both Louisiana citizens. One of Arkoma's limited partners was also a Louisiana citizen.11
The District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction. After Magee Drilling Company intervened and counterclaims were filed, the District Court entered judgment for Arkoma following a bench trial. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that only the general partners' citizenship mattered. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the jurisdictional question.12
Because the limited partner's Louisiana citizenship matches that of the defendants, complete diversity is absent once all members are counted.13
The citizenship of limited partners must be taken into account for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, and the federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.14
Related opinions on this issue
Justice O’Connor dissented. She maintained that the real-party-to-the-controversy test, applied in Navarro Savings Assn. v. Lee and traceable to Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., should govern.15
Under that test, limited partners lack any power to control the partnership's business operations or to initiate or direct the course of litigation. Their role is restricted by the Uniform Limited Partnership Act and by the specific terms of Arkoma's partnership agreement, which vest exclusive management authority in the general partners.16 Consequently, limited partners are not real parties to the controversy, and their citizenship should be disregarded when assessing diversity.17
Applying this analysis, complete diversity would exist between the general partners, the limited partnership itself, and the Louisiana defendants.18