Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02251/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lucas Augustine, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Spare Backup, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2251-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they can hear only those

cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely, cases

involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is

a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party

asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that this Court has jurisdiction. Id. 

The Court has reviewed the complaint in this case and finds Plaintiff has not pleaded

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are based

on Arizona state statutes. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged diversity. See e.g. Hertz Corp.

v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010). Because Plaintiff filed his suit in federal district

court, he must show that the federal court is authorized to hear his case. Accordingly,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:12-cv-02251-JAT Document 5 Filed 11/01/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint alleging federal

subject matter jurisdiction within 30 days of the date of this Order, or this case will be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-02251-JAT Document 5 Filed 11/01/12 Page 2 of 2