Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02592/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02592-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

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

 Plaintiffs may dispute which Defendants have been served.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sherri Clinger; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

General Motors Company; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2592-PHX-JAT

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion to remand, in addition to

addressing all arguments raised by Plaintiffs, Defendants shall also address the citizenship

of all Defendants. Specifically, Defendants did not make any allegations regarding the

citizenship of the “unserved” Defendants.1

 However, a defendant can not ignore an

unserved, nondiverse co-defendant in seeking to remove a case to federal court based on

diversity. Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Amer., 980 F.2d 1261, 1266 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1992)

(citing Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1969). Therefore,

Defendants must allege the citizenship of all Defendants.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02592-JAT Document 21 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 1