Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00745/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

Edward Harrison and Carol )

Harrison, husband and wife, )

)

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV06-0745-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Howmedica Osteonics Corp., )

et al. )

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is, inter alia, a

motion for summary judgment by defendant Howmedica Osteonics

Corporation. The parties are not challenging this court’s 

jurisdiction, which purports to be based upon diversity of

citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Not. of Removal

(doc. 1). Nonetheless, because federal courts have limited

jurisdiction, before addressing the merits of Howmedica’s motion,

this court has “an independent obligation to determine whether

subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of

challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,

Case 2:06-cv-00745-RCB Document 69 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 4
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

1 “This omission [in plaintiffs’ complaint] [is] understandable [given

that] this action [was] removed from state court.” Lacombe v. Bullhead City 

Hospital Corp., 2007 WL 2702005, at *2 (D.Ariz. 2007). “Indeed, it is not uncommon

for a state court pleading to omit the necessary facts needed to determine

diversity.” Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, 425 F.3d 689, 693 (9th

Cir. 2005). “That is so because ‘[o]bviously, diversity of citizenship is a

federal, not a state, concern.’” Lacombe, 2007 WL 2702005, at *2 (quoting Harris,

425 F.3d at 693).

- 2 -

___, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006) (citation omitted). This

obligation is particularly compelling where, as here, subject

matter jurisdiction is not evident on the face of the removal

petition or, for that matter, on the face of the complaint. 

 In the present case there are no allegations of plaintiffs’

citizenship, only their residence. See Not. of Removal (doc. 1) at

3, par. 4 (citing Co., at ¶ 1) (emphasis added) (“Defendants are

informed and believe, and therefore, allege, that at the time of

the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs . . . are residents of

Maricopa County, Arizona.”)1 Based upon well-settled case law,

this court has repeatedly stressed that allegations as to residency

are insufficient to establish citizenship for diversity purposes,

however. See, e.g., Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v. Leighty, 2007 WL

4616687, at *2 – *3 (D.Ariz. 2007); Lacombe, 2007 WL 2702005, at

*1- *3; and Western World Insurance Co. v. Ramirez, 2007 WL

1839594, at *1 (D.Ariz. 2007). Presumptively, federal courts are

without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to

establish to the contrary rests upon the party asserting

jurisdiction. Kokken v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377,

114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1989). Furthermore, lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua

sponte at any juncture. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer

Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9th Cir. 1996). Therefore,

Case 2:06-cv-00745-RCB Document 69 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

the court hereby orders defendant Howmedica, as the party

asserting jurisdiction, to file and serve, on or before, March 13,

2008, a memorandum and whatever else it deems necessary to

establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This is

essential because “[j]urisdiction is what [this court’s] power

rests upon.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 

“Without jurisdiction it is nothing[;]” and hence it would be 

without power to decide the pending motions. See id.

 The court further orders plaintiffs to file and serve a surreply on or before March 13, 2008, addressing the issue of the

applicability, if any, of the Restatement (Third) of Torts:

Products Liability, Section 6(c) to the particular facts and

circumstances of the present action. This issue must be addressed

because it is the basis for the penultimate argument in Howmedica’s

Reply, and at least at first glance appears to be potentially

dispositive. 

The court is keenly aware, however, that Arizona courts “do

not follow the Restatement blindly, . . . and will come to a

contrary conclusion if Arizona law suggests otherwise.” See Powers

v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 174 P.3d 777, 782 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 2008)

(citations omitted). For that reason, the Arizona Court of

Appeals, Division One, just recently undertook an independent 

evaluation of “whether the Restatement [(Third)] position is good

legal authority under Arizona law[]” on the issue of “whether the

hindsight test should be applied to a strict liability product

claim alleging failure to warn as the defect.” Id. at 782 and 778. 

Because “Arizona has not formally adopted the Restatement (Third)

of Torts,” Gebhardt v. Mentor Corporation, 191 F.R.D. 180, 185 

Case 2:06-cv-00745-RCB Document 69 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(D.Ariz. 1999), aff’d on other grounds without pub’d opinion, 15

Fed. Appx. 540 (9th Cir. 2001), this court must undergo a similar

independent evaluation of the potential applicability to the

present action of Section 6(c) of that revision of the Restatement. 

Consequently, as outlined above IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant Howmedica Osteonics Corporation shall 

file and serve no later than 5:00 p.m., March 13, 2008, a

memorandum of law and whatever else it deems necessary to

establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction; and 

(2) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file 

and serve no later than 5:00 p.m., March 13, 2008, a 

sur-reply addressing the applicability, if any, of the 

Restatement (Third) of Torts, Section 6(c), to the present

case.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2008.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-00745-RCB Document 69 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 4