Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02157/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

1

 The complaint inexplicably alleges that the Court also has jurisdiction

over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 notwithstanding that it is clear from

the complaint that federal question jurisdiction has absolutely no applicability to

this action.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diane Barnes and Carl Barnes,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

TA Operating LLC,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2157-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a complaint filed on November 1, 2011, the plaintiffs allege that the

Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this personal injury action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1

 Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds

that the diversity-related jurisdictional allegations therein are patently insufficient

as a matter of law to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The

Court will therefore require the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint properly

stating a jurisdictional basis for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also,

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926) ("The

Case 2:11-cv-02157-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/02/11 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

- 2 -

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.")

The jurisdictional allegation concerning the citizenship of the plaintiffs,

which is merely that they are “residents of Roscommon, Roscommon County,

Michigan,” is facially deficient as a matter of law because it has long been

established that an allegation of residency does not suffice for purposes of 

§ 1332. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617

(1905) ("It 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."); accord, 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 allegation concerning the defendant, which is merely that

it is “a Delaware Limited Liability Company authorized to do and doing business

in the State of Arizona as Petro Shopping Centers,” is also facially deficient as a

matter of law inasmuch as the citizenship of a limited liability company for

purposes of § 1332 is the citizenship of each of its members. Johnson v.

Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)

Case 2:11-cv-02157-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/02/11 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

2

 Since only a corporation or an individual may be a citizen for purposes

of § 1332 jurisdiction, the amended complaint must set forth any sub-layers of

partners or members the limited liability company may have.

- 3 -

("Notwithstanding LLCs' corporate traits, ... every circuit that has addressed the

question treats them like partnerships for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. ...

We therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a

citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.") Since the

complaint fails to set forth the citizenship of any member of the defendant limited

liability company, the Court will require the plaintiffs to specifically identity in their

amended complaint each LLC member by name, specifically allege the type of

business entity that any non-individual member is, and affirmatively allege the

state of citizenship of each member.2

The plaintiffs are advised that their failure to timely or sufficiently comply

with this order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

November 14, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall immediately provide a

copy of this order to any defendant already served with process.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-02157-DKD Document 7 Filed 11/02/11 Page 3 of 3