Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02704/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02704-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RIGOBERTO MEZA COTA; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE

OPERATIONS, LLC; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2704-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 10, 2010, the Court issued the following 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); Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut

Chems., 878 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing that complete diversity

is lacking when plaintiff and defendant are both foreign).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by February 23, 2010, Plaintiffs (who are the

parties asserting jurisdiction and therefore have the burden of pleading

jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1990)) 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.

Doc. #14.

Plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, and the Court dismissed this case,

without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction on March 2, 2010. Doc. #16.

Now, Plaintiffs move for relief from judgment arguing that failing to respond to the Order

Case 2:09-cv-02704-JAT Document 21 Filed 03/12/10 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 -

was excusable neglect (Doc. #17). Further, Plaintiffs claim relief from judgment is

warranted because they believe they can cure the deficiencies in jurisdiction by an amended

complaint (Doc. #18). Defendant has responded and advised the Court that Defendant does

not oppose either motion. However, the parties cannot stipulate to federal subject matter

jurisdiction. See e.g. Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d

691 (7th Cir. 2003).

Before the Court considers whether Plaintiff has met the test for relief from judgment

under Rule 60(b)(1), the Court will consider whether the proposed amendment would be

futile. The proposed amended complaint still fails to plead federal subject matter

jurisdiction. 

Specifically, in the Order quoted above, the Court identified two pleading failures

with respect to jurisdiction. First, that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state

in which a member is a citizen; and, second, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over suits

between foreign nationals.

The amended complaint cures only the second failure by dismissing the foreign

Defendant. However, it still pleads Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, as an

Ohio “corporation” with its principal place of business in Tennessee. Doc. #18-1 at 3. This

is insufficient to plead the citizenship of a limited liability company. Id.; Johnson v.

Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, even if the

Court permitted the amendment, the amended complaint still fails to plead federal subject

matter jurisdiction. Because pleading jurisdiction is the only basis for the amendment, the

amendment is futile. Therefore,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-02704-JAT Document 21 Filed 03/12/10 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to amend (Doc. #18) is denied as futile; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the motion to amend has been denied;

the motion for relief from judgment (Doc. #17) is denied as moot.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02704-JAT Document 21 Filed 03/12/10 Page 3 of 3