Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02346/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
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

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

Ace Ventures, L.L.C., ) No. CV 06-2346-PHX-PGR

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

)

LQK, L.L.C., et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

 On September 28, 2006, 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 Plaintiff ACC Ventures, L.L.C. is inadequate

since it merely states that the Plaintiff "is a Nevada limited liability corporation and owner

of property located at 11875 South I-19 Frontage Road, Green Valley, Arizona." The

Case 2:06-cv-02346-PGR Document 5 Filed 10/05/06 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

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. 

3The jurisdictional allegations regarding Jane Doe Koch, Jane Doe Qualls, and Jane Doe

Leto are also inadequate since, as above, the Complaint only specifies the residency of each person.

- 2 -

Complaint also inadequately alleges the citizenship of Defendant LQK, L.L.C. d/b/a Denny's

Restaurant by merely stating that it is "an Arizona limited liability corporation" with its

principal place of business in Holbrook, 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 Plaintiff limited liability

company.2

The jurisdictional allegations regarding individual Defendants Doug F. Koch, Robbie

L. Qualls, and William C. Leto are inadequate as well since the Complaint only states the

residency of each Defendant.3

 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,

Case 2:06-cv-02346-PGR Document 5 Filed 10/05/06 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

27

28

4 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 -

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

assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") Therefore, 

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 November 3, 2006.4

DATED this 4th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02346-PGR Document 5 Filed 10/05/06 Page 3 of 3