Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01453/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01453-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arcus Equity II, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1453-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a complaint filed on July 22, 2011, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)(1). Having reviewed the complaint upon the reassignment of this

action, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint are

insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of subject matter

jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1653; see also, Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339

(1926) ("The established rule is that a plaintiff, 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

Case 2:11-cv-01453-PGR Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 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

- 2 -

called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless

the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The jurisdictional allegation concerning the citizenship of plaintiff Arcus

Equity II, LLC, which is merely that it is an Arizona limited liability company with

its principal place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the jurisdictional

allegation concerning the citizenship of defendant Mission Capital Advisors, LLC,

which is merely that it is a Florida limited liability company located in West Palm

Beach, Florida, with offices in New York, NY, Austin, TX, Newport Beach,

CAROLINA, and Palm Beach Gardens, FL, are facially deficient as a matter of

law inasmuch as the citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of 

§ 1332 is the citizenship of each of its members. 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.") Since the complaint fails to set forth the

citizenship of the members of the plaintiff and the members of defendant Mission

Capital Advisors, the Court will require the plaintiff to specifically identity in its

amended complaint each LLC member by name, specifically allege the type of

business entity that any non-individual member is, and affirmatively allege the

state of citizenship of each member. 

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint

that cures the pleading deficiency noted in this Order will result in the dismissal of

this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-01453-PGR Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 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

1

 The plaintiff is advised that the complete capitalization of a party’s name

in the caption of any document filed with the Court violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) unless

that party’s name is completely capitalized in its normal use.

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

September 12, 2011.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Time to

Respond to Complaint (Doc. 9) is denied without prejudice as moot.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01453-PGR Document 11 Filed 08/30/11 Page 3 of 3