Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02658/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02658-0/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

NEVADA RAILROAD MATERIALS,

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY; IOWA PACIFIC

HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2658-PHX-JAT

ORDER

“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

Cir. 2003). In this case, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332; Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)

(discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company); Industrial Tectonics v. Aero

Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by January 27, 2010, Plaintiff (who is the party asserting

jurisdiction and therefore the party with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see id.) shall file

an amended complaint properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will

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

Case 2:09-cv-02658-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/13/10 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

1

 The Court should not give a party advice because advice undermines the district

judge’s role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is cautioned that it will be given one

opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional defects. The Court will not issue additional

sua sponte show cause orders to advise Plaintiff how to plead jurisdiction.1

 Therefore, if the

amended complaint fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be

dismissed without the Court sua sponte granting Plaintiff any further opportunities to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to answer (Doc.

#12) is denied as moot; Defendants shall answer the amended complaint within 14 days of

when it is filed.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02658-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 2