12 hours ago
2
In November 2024, Onoh, a former Ambassador to Namibia, told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that she was seeking permanent residence (Green Card) in Texas, US because of a SaharaReporters’ report accusing her of corruption.
A United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division has dismissed Ambassador Lilian Onoh's defamatory suit against Sahara Reporters Media group, INC., Sahara Reporters, INC., and Comrade Omoyele Sowore for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
Judge Jane J. Boyle granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequently dismissed Onoh’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that a final judgment will follow.
The court determined that it was not allowed to hear the case due to the foreign citizenship of both Ms. Onoh and Sowore.
The Court in a Memorandum Opinion And Order, issued on Monday, January 13, held that the Plaintiff (Lilian Onοh) failed to defeat a factual attack, noting that a plaintiff "must prove the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence" and is "obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain his burden of proof".
Signed by the presiding Judge, Justice Boyle in Civil Action NO. 3:23-CV-2838-B, the court explained that Onoh, a former Nigerian ambassador alleged that the Defendants published a false story accusing her of illegally diverting funds from the Nigerian government.
"Onoh asserts state-law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. Onoh alleges that Sahara Reporters Media Group, Inc. and Sahara Reporters, Inc. are citizens of New York and Sowore "is an individual residing in" New Jersey. Onoh is a Nigerian citizen who "resides in" Texas," the court document reads.
The case was robustly defended by a global law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP with Doug Brown as the lead lawyer.
Image
Responding, the Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
Considering their Motion, the presiding Judge held that; "Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is limited; federal courts may entertain only those cases involving a question of federal law or those where the parties are of diverse citizenship.
"In diversity cases, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.
"In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court may evaluate "the complaint alone; the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts."
The court noted that “a ‘factual attack’ on jurisdiction is based on matters outside the pleadings”.
“To defeat a factual attack, a plaintiff ‘must prove the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence’ and is ‘obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to sustain his burden of proof,’” it added.
Giving reason for the dismissal of the suit, the court held: "Onoh alleges that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Doc. 9, Am. Compl., 15.
“Under § 1332, the citizenship of each plaintiff must be diverse from the citizenship of each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00. Complete diversity exists when the controversy is between ‘citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.’
"But complete diversity is destroyed when there are foreign parties on both sides of the dispute. ‘A lawful permanent resident domiciled in a state is not a citizen of that state-he is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.’”
“Here, both Onoh and Sowore are foreign parties, so the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction,” the court explicitly stated.
"Onoh is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Onoh alleges in her Complaint that she is a citizen of Nigeria who ‘resides in’ Texas.”
In her Response to Defendants' Motion, Onoh argued that she should be considered a citizen of Texas “because she is ‘in the process of obtaining her Permanent Legal Resident Status’ and intends ‘to remain a Texas resident indefinitely following receipt of this new status.’
"But even if Onoh were a lawful permanent resident of Texas, which she is not, ‘a lawful permanent resident domiciled in a state is not a citizen of that state – he is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.’ As a result, Onoh is an alien for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
"Since Onoh is a foreign party, the Court only has diversity jurisdiction if there are no foreign parties on the other side.”
The US court noted that the "existence of aliens of both sides of a dispute destroys diversity jurisdiction".
The court also found that Sowore is not a citizen of New Jersey.
Onoh alleged in her Complaint that “Sowore is an individual residing in New Jersey”.
“But citizenship and residency are not synonymous for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the court held.
“And in a sworn declaration, Sowore states that he is a Nigerian citizen who is a lawful permanent resident in New Jersey, and that he intends to ‘return to Nigeria and live there long term.’”
"Thus, the Court finds Sowore is a foreign party for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. And because there are foreign parties on both sides of the dispute, diversity jurisdiction is destroyed,” it added.
"For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to dismiss and dismisses Onoh's Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A final judgment will follow," the court concluded in its ruling.
BACKGROUND
In November 2024, Onoh, a former Ambassador to Namibia, told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that she was seeking permanent residence (Green Card) in Texas, US because of a SaharaReporters’ report accusing her of corruption.
The report published on April 21, 2023, is titled ‘Nigerian Civil Service Commission Sacks Former High Commissioner to Namibia, Lilian Onoh, Over N50million Misappropriation, Recommends Trial by ICPC.’
Image
She claimed that because of the article, she was seeking an asylum in the US for diplomats in danger so as to remain in the country “permanently”.
Onoh stated this in a 102-page affidavit submitted to the court on November 1, 2024, adding that the report had prevented her from joining her church’s choir.
The civil action with no. 3:23-cv-02838-B was filed against Sahara Reporters Media Group, Inc., Sahara Reporters, Inc., and Omoyele Sowore, who are the defendants.
Follow the Sahara Reporters channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaFClvtH5JM6SSsP7M2Y
English (US) ·