Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00759/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00759-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance 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

Barbara Van Dyne; Barbara Van Dyne,

L.L.C., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Markel Insurance Company; Markel

Corporation; Jim Calfee Insurance

Agencies, Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-759-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Defendants removed this case based on alleged diversity jurisdiction. This Court

ordered Defendants to amend the notice of removal to correct the jurisdictional allegation in

the notice of removal. Defendants filed an amended notice of removal and corrected some,

but not all, jurisdictional allegation deficiencies. 

Specifically, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and

the state where it has its principal place of business. Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912

F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). In the Ninth Circuit, a

corporation’s principal place of business is defined as the location where a majority of the

corporation’s business activity takes place. Id. at 1094. If there is not a state where a

substantial portion of the corporation’s business activity occurs, then the corporation is a

resident of the state where the corporation’s executive and administrative functions are

Case 2:07-cv-00759-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

performed. Id. The burden of proving the facts supporting jurisdiction is on the party

asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 1092 (citations omitted).

In this case, Defendants allege, "Jim Calfee Insurance Agencies, Inc. is a Colorado

corporation." Amended Notice of Removal at 2 (Doc. #8). This allegation is insufficient

because it does not allege both the state of incorporation and the principal place of business.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 22, 2007, Defendants shall again amend their notice

of removal to properly allege Federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be

remanded to state court.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00759-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2