Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00774/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00774-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

1

In order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

complete diversity of citizenship must exist. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that diversity

jurisdiction does not exist unless each Defendant is a citizen of a different state from each Plaintiff.

Owen Equipment and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leica Microsystems, Inc., ) No. CV 07-0774-PHX-PGR

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

)

Kerry Potter, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

 On April 12, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging jurisdiction based solely

on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 2006).1

 Having reviewed

the Complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations are inadequate to establish

the existence of subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch as the Complaint fails to properly allege

the citizenship of the parties.

The jurisdictional allegation regarding Defendant Southwest Surgical, LLC is

inadequate since it merely states that the Defendant "is a Arizona limited liability company

with its principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona." The Complaint also inadequately

Case 2:07-cv-00774-PGR Document 20 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 3
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 Complaint must expressly identify each member of any limited partnerships, and/or

limited liability companies, along with each member's citizenship. Such jurisdictional allegations

are necessary for this Court to conclude whether diversity jurisdiction is satisfied. 

- 2 -

alleges the citizenship of Defendant Southwest MicroSurgical, LLC by merely stating that

it is "an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business located in

Scottsdale, Arizona." These jurisdictional allegations are 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, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (Nothwithstanding L.L.C.'s 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 L.L.C. is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.")

Thus, what is required in the present Complaint is an affirmative allegation of the citizenship

of each member of the Defendant limited liability companies.2

The jurisdictional allegations regarding Defendants Cheryl Potter, Kerry Potter and

Anne Nichols are inadequate as well since the Complaint only states the residency of each

Defendant. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear,

[i]t has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are]

wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution

and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the ...

courts of the United States; and that a mere averment of

residence in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship

of that state for purposes of jurisdiction. 

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905); accord, Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (Plaintiff's complaint ... state[s] that Plaintiffs were

'residents' of California. But the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship,

not residency. ... [The] failure to specify Plaintiff's state of citizenship was fatal to [the]

assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") Therefore, 

Case 2:07-cv-00774-PGR Document 20 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely comply with this Order shall result in the

dismissal of this action without further notice.

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, and the Plaintiff shall file an amended Complaint properly stating

a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than Monday, April 30, 2007.3

 The Plaintiff's

failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without

further notice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall forthwith give notice of this

order to any Defendant already served with process.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00774-PGR Document 20 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3