Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01021/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01021-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

COBIZ BANK, a Colorado Corporation

doing business as ARIZONA BUSINESS

BANK, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GRACE CAPITAL, L.L.C., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1021-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and Application for Provisional Remedy With Notice

(Dkt. # 2) sets forth under oath that Plaintiff Arizona Business Bank is authorized to do

business in Arizona. It further asserts that “the contracts out of which Plaintiff’s claims arise

were formed and to be performed in, and provide for jurisdiction and venue in Maricopa

County, Arizona.” The Defendants are for the most part Arizona residents. Yet, the

Plaintiff’s basis for asserting jurisdiction is diversity.

While the Court understands that Arizona Business Bank is incorporated in Colorado,

corporations incorporated in one state, but having their principal place of business in another

are deemed to be citizens of both states. They can bring an action against Defendants in

diversity only if no opposing party is a citizen of either state. Bank of Calif. Nat’l Ass’n v.

Twin Harbors Lumber Co., 465 F.2d 489, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1972). 

Case 2:09-cv-01021-GMS Document 35 Filed 07/01/09 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 -

The Court is required to determine its own jurisdiction. “[A] federal court may dismiss

sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing

Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. R.y. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)); see

Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). “While a

party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing

a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations

omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action.”). 

Because the Plaintiff is the Arizona Business Bank, and because it entered into the

contracts that are the subject matter of this complaint in Maricopa County, Arizona, it seems

likely that Plaintiff’s principal place of business is Arizona. If this is the case, then the Court

has no jurisdiction over this complaint. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,

Plaintiff Arizona Business Bank shall file a memorandum with this Court setting forth all of

the branch locations of the Arizona Business Bank, and further setting forth any facts or

argument that would otherwise establish that Plaintiff’s principal place of business is other

than in this state. Defendants may respond thereto in the time set forth by the rules.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01021-GMS Document 35 Filed 07/01/09 Page 2 of 2