Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08171/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08171-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

 In its answer filed on September 10, 2010, the removing defendant

states that its correct name is Leggett & Platt Incorporated. The Court uses the

name L&P Transportation, Inc. in this order as that is the name used in the

complaint and by the removing defendant in its Notice of Removal.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Star Insurance Company, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Terry West, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8171-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

Defendant L&P Transportation, Inc. removed this action on September 9,

2010 solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.1

 Having reviewed

the Notice of Removal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 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 affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for

the Court to determine the citizenship of any party.

First, the Notice of Removal fails to properly allege the citizenship of the

plaintiffs in that it merely states that they “are foreign corporations, with its/their

Case 3:10-cv-08171-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 Nor does the Notice of Removal make any effort to explain, as it must

pursuant to the “rule of unanimity,” why these defendants have not joined in the

removal. See Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th

Cir.2009) (“We emphasize that Chicago’s requirement that all codefendants ‘join’

in requesting removal remains binding.”) (citing to Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific

Railway C. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 20 S.Ct. 854 (1900)); Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1981) (“As a

general rule, all defendants who may properly join in the removal petition must

join.”)

- 2 -

principal place of business in Michigan and Minnesota.” Such a jurisdictional

allegation is insufficient as a matter of law since a corporation is a citizen both of

the state by which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place

of business, and a notice of removal must affirmatively allege both states.

Second, the Notice of Removal inexplicably fails to even attempt to allege

the citizenship of defendants Terry West and Jane Doe West, Delta Express, Inc.,

and James P. Meszaros and Jane Doe Meszaros, and the factual allegations

necessary to determine their citizenship is not otherwise found in the record.2

 While the complaint alleges that Terry West is “a resident of the state of

Illinois” and that James P. Meszaros is “a resident of the state of Oklahoma,”

those allegations are insufficient as a matter of law to cure the deficiency of the

Notice of Removal because, 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 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

Case 3:10-cv-08171-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/13/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

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.") 

Furthermore, the allegation in the complaint that Delta Express, Inc. is “a

Missouri corporation” is also a legally insufficient allegation of citizenship since

"an allegation that a corporation is a citizen of a certain state (without more) is not

an allegation of fact, but a mere conclusion of law" that is inadequate to establish

diversity jurisdiction. Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446

F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970).

Third, while the Notice of Removal attempts to allege the citizenship of

removing defendant L&P Transportation, LLC by stating that it is “a Limited

Liability Company with its principal place of business in Delaware,” that also is

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, 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 

required in a notice of removal when a LLC is a named party are affirmative

allegations specifically identifying each member of the LLC and specifying each

member’s state of citizenship.

In order to cure these patently obvious pleading deficiencies, the Court will

require the removing defendant to file an amended notice of removal that

affirmatively states the citizenship of each party. The defendant is advised that

Case 3:10-cv-08171-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/13/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

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 removing defendant L&P Transportation, LLC. shall

file an amended notice of removal properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this

action no later than Friday, September 17, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08171-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/13/10 Page 4 of 4