Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08160/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08160-0/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

1

 The defendant is advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the caption of the

 Notice of Removal violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kingman Hospital, Inc., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MPC Computers, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8160-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

The defendant removed this action on December 3, 2007 solely on the

basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Having reviewed the defendant's

Notice of Removal to Federal Court to determine if subject matter jurisdiction

exists in this Court, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal is facially deficient

because it fails to properly allege the existence of diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction.1

As the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear,

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff [or removing defendant], 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 [or

remand] the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Case 3:07-cv-08160-PGR Document 5 Filed 12/04/07 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

- 2 -

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Notice of Removal improperly alleges the citizenship of the defendant

inasmuch as it merely states that the defendant "is a Delaware limited liability

company, with its principal place of business in Idaho." This allegation is

insufficient as a matter of law because a limited liability company is not treated as a

corporation for purposes of determining whether diversity exists under § 1332. Johnson

v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("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.") What is thus required in the Notice of Removal is an

affirmative allegation that specifically identifies each member of the defendant limited

liability company and specifically identifies the citizenship of each such member.

In order to cure this pleading deficiency, the Court will require the defendant to

file an amended notice of removal that properly alleges the existence of diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction. The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with

this Order shall result in the remand of this action without further notice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall file an amended notice of removal

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than December 14, 2007.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08160-PGR Document 5 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2