Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08131/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08131-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Cliffton Equities, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Summerlin Asset Management III,

LLC,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-08131-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

On August 21, 2012, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 13) that dismissed

the complaint because it failed to adequately allege the basis for diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction and required the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that

properly states a jurisdictional basis for this action. On August 30, 2012, the

plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that is still jurisdictionally defective.

The Court’s previous order required the plaintiff in part to “affirmatively

allege the state of citizenship of each member” of defendant Summerlin Asset

Management III, LLC. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendant’s

sole member is Summerlin Asset Management, LLC, which is alleged to have

three members: “Peter Pakes, James Stepanian and Adam Pakes, each of whom

is a resident of Lake Havasu City, Arizona.” This allegation of residency is

Case 3:12-cv-08131-PGR Document 15 Filed 09/04/12 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

- 2 -

deficient as a matter of law to invoke diversity jurisdiction because it fails to allege

the individuals’ citizenship as required. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S.

141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905) ("It 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."); accord,

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.") To cure this pleading deficiency, the plaintiff must

affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of the three individuals.

The plaintiff is advised that the Court will not permit a fourth attempt to

plead diversity jurisdiction and that a failure to timely or sufficiently comply with

this Order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff shall file a second amended

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

September 10, 2012.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08131-PGR Document 15 Filed 09/04/12 Page 2 of 2