Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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). 

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert R. and Deborah L. Macy, )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CV-06-1553-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Western Imperial 2000, LLC, )

)

Defendant. ) )

The defendant removed this action on June 16, 2006 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

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 5 Filed 06/20/06 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 -

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.

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

defendant has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the Notice of

Removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to

determine the citizenship of any party.

The Notice of Removal fails to allege the citizenship of the plaintiffs

inasmuch as it merely states that they are individuals "residing in Maricopa

County, Arizona." This allegation of residency is insufficient as a matter of law

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, as the Supreme Court has also 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 in that state for the purpose of

jurisdiction.

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905); cf.,

Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (Plaintiffs'

complaint ... state[s] that Plaintiffs were 'residents' of California. But the diversity

jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. ...

[The] failure to specify Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of

diversity jurisdiction.")

The Notice of Removal also fails to allege the citizenship of the defendant

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 5 Filed 06/20/06 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 - 3 -

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

corporation for purposes of determining whether diversity exists for purposes of § 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 of the citizenship of each member of the

defendant limited liability company.

In order to cure these pleading deficiencies, the Court will require the defendant

to file an amended notice of removal that affirmatively states the citizenship of each

party. 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 July 7, 2006.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 5 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 3