Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01117/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cory Prochaska, )) Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-1117-PCT-PGR ) vs. )) ORDER Walgreens Co., )) Defendant. ) ) 

In a complaint filed on April 21, 2006, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this action solely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations

therein are insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an

amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

Since it is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside of this Court's

limited subject matter jurisdiction unless the contrary is established by the party

asserting jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,

377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court has long since, and

repeatedly, made clear that

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff, suing in federal court, must show

in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is

essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on

having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same,

must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Case 3:06-cv-01117-PGR Document 5 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff

has not met his jurisdictional pleading burden because the complaint fails to

affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine the citizenship

of any party.

The jurisdictional statement concerning the plaintiff is facially deficient

because it merely states that he is "a citizen of the United States and a resident of

Yuma County, State of Arizona[.]" Allegations of residency do not suffice for

purposes of § 1332 because, as the Supreme Court has also repeatedly made clear,

[i]t has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly

different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws

defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the ... courts of the United

States; and that a mere averment of residence in a particular state is

not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose of

jurisdiction.

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905); cf., Kanter

v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (Plaintiffs' complaint ...

state[s] that Plaintiffs were 'residents' of California. But the diversity jurisdiction

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. ... [The] failure to

specify Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of diversity

jurisdiction.") 

The jurisdictional statement concerning the defendant is facially deficient

because it merely states that the defendant is "an Illinois corporation doing business

in the State of Arizona." Since a corporate party is a citizen of the state in which it

is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business, 28

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "an allegation that a corporation is a citizen of a certain state

(without more) is not an allegation of fact, but a mere conclusion of law" that is

inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction. Fifty Associates v. Prudential

Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970).

The plaintiff is advised that his failure to timely file an amended complaint that

Case 3:06-cv-01117-PGR Document 5 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

cures these pleading deficiencies by affirmatively setting forth the citizenship of each

party to this action shall result in the dismissal of this action without further notice for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly

stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 12, 2006.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-01117-PGR Document 5 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 3