Submitted: February 9, 2017
from United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - St. Joseph
SMITH,  GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
Aly obtained a jury verdict and judgment for breach of
contract against Hanzada for Import & Export Company,
Ltd. Hanzada appeals, claiming the district
court: (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction;
(2) lacked personal jurisdiction; and (3) erred in not
applying the statute of frauds. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
is an Egyptian company that imports and exports beef. Aly is
a dual citizen of Egypt and the United States. Since 2001, he
has resided in Ohio for 8 to 9 months of the year.
Egypt, Aly met Samy Shaheen, an Egyptian citizen and an owner
of Hanzada. Shaheen asked Aly to help Hanzada import beef
from the United States. In 2005, Aly facilitated a contract
for Hanzada to purchase beef from Greater Omaha Packing.
Shipments began in early 2006. Hanzada compensated Aly with
August 2006, Aly and Shaheen drove to Missouri to view the
headquarters of National Beef, Inc. During the drive, Aly
claims they made an oral contract: if Aly could "get
National Beef for Hanzada, " Hanzada would pay Aly $10
per metric ton of beef purchased. Aly says Shaheen reaffirmed
the contract in Missouri near National Beef's
headquarters and again on a plane ride to Kansas.
established a relationship with National Beef. In August
2008, Hanzada began buying product from National Beef.
Hanzada did not pay Aly under the terms of the oral contract.
2012, Aly sued Hanzada for breach of contract. Hanzada moved
to dismiss, asserting no subject matter or personal
jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion. In its
answer and amended answer, Hanzada again challenged
jurisdiction. It moved for summary judgment, invoking
Missouri's statute of frauds. The court denied the motion
(and later Hanzada's motions for judgment as a matter of
law on the same issue). A jury found in favor of Aly,
awarding $1, 591, 286.60 in damages. Hanzada appeals.
argues the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because the parties were not diverse. This court reviews
"whether diversity jurisdiction exists de novo, "
and factual findings for clear error. Branson Label, Inc.
v. City of Branson, Mo., 793 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir.
2015). The plaintiff bears the "burden of proving
subject matter jurisdiction." V S Ltd. P'ship v.
Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109, 1112
(8th Cir. 2000).
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75, 000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of a
State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . .
." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). See U.S. Const.
Art. III, § 2 ("The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases . . . between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and
foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."). The district
court found: (1) Aly is a citizen of Egypt and the United
States; (2) when Aly sued, he was domiciled in Ohio; and (3)
Hanzada is an Egyptian citizen. Hanzada did not challenge