Hossein Sarrami; Zohreh Bakhshizadeh, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Nouri International Interior Design, Incorporated, Amaryland Corporation, Defendant-appellee, 7 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 7 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993) Submitted: March 17, 1993. Decided: September 16, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-92-1615-WN)

Michael A. Fracassi, Fracassi, Mahdavi & Taweel, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Charles R. Claxton, Goldstein & Claxton, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

D. Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


OPINION

Zohreh Bakhshizadeh and Hossein Sarrami, Iranians with permanent resident status in the United States who are presently domiciled in Maryland, appeal from the district court's order granting Appellee's (Nouri's) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Bakhshizadeh and Sarrami had sought relief in the form of a declaratory judgment to resolve a dispute between themselves and Nouri over interior design services allegedly provided by a Nouri saleswoman. The district court dismissed this action after concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2), as amended in 1988, precluded the exercise of the court's federal diversity jurisdiction over actions between resident aliens and citizens of the state in the which the resident aliens are domiciled-here, the state of Maryland. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sarrami v. Nouri Int'l Interior Design, Inc., No. CA-92-1615-WN (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1992). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.