Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02612/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02612-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Kenneth R. Mickas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

(1) Scottsdale Insurance Company;

(2) Scottsdale Insurance Company’s

subsidiaries, 

(3) National Casualty Insurance,

(4) Litchfield Special Risks, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2612-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they can hear only those

cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases

involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is

a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party

asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id. In this

case, because Plaintiff filed his suit in federal district court, he must show that the federal

court is authorized to hear his case. 

In his complaint, Plaintiff’s total jurisdictional allegation is, “This court has

jurisdiction because the defendant’s headquarters are located in Scottsdale, Arizona.” Such

an allegation is insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

Case 2:07-cv-02612-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/04/08 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that on February 4, 2008 at 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff shall appear and

show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02612-JAT Document 5 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2