incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); and the presence of foreign parties on both sides of the litigation destroys diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff must be of diverse citizenship to all defendants. See, e.g., Franceskin v. Credit Suisse, 214 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir.2000). We also agree with the district court’s determination that there was no federal question jurisdiction even though AICO’s statement of claim raises Federal securities law questions. It is well settled that subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to compel arbitration may not be based on the content of the underlying claim. See Westmoreland Capital Corp. v. Findlay, 100 F.3d 263 (2d Cir.1996), amended opinion 1996 U.S.App. LEXIS 35571, at *15-16 (<HOLDING>) AICO also argues that the district court had
holding that the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that the text of faa  4 should not be interpreted to mean that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action to compel or stay arbitration merely because the underlying claim raises a federal question