Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08161/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08161-0/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 1

 The defendants are advised that the complete capitalization of the

parties' names in the caption of the Notice of Removal violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

M.J. Harris, Inc., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Mercury A/C & Heating, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8161-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

Defendants Centimark Corporation and Arch Insurance Company removed

this action on August 30, 2010 solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the defendants’

Notice of Removal 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

properly allege the existence of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.1

 

The removing defendants have not met their jurisdictional pleading burden

regarding the citizenship of plaintiff M.J. Harris, Inc. in that the Notice of Removal

merely states that M.J. Harris, Inc. “is an Alabama corporation.” Since a

Case 3:10-cv-08161-PGR Document 9 Filed 08/31/10 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

- 2 -

corporate party is a citizen of the state by which it has been incorporated and of

the state where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "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). In order to cure this jurisdictional deficiency, the

Court will require the removing defendants to file an amended notice of removal

that properly and affirmatively states the citizenship of M.J. Harris, Inc. The

removing defendants are advised that their failure to timely comply with this order

will result in the remand of this action without further notice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 

The removing defendants will also be required to explain in the amended

notice of removal why removal is procedurally proper in light of (1) the “rule of

unanimity” given that the Notice of Removal fails to state anything about whether

co-defendant Mercury A/C & Heating, Inc. has consented to the removal

notwithstanding that it is alleged to have been served with process on August 2,

2010, and (2) the “no local defendant” prohibition of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (an

action based on diversity may be removed “only if none of the parties in interest

properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such

action is brought[,]” given that the Notice of Removal states that co-defendant

Mercury A/C & Heating, Inc. “is incorporated in the State of Arizona with its

principal place of business in Lake Havasu City, Arizona.” Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the removing defendants shall file an amended notice 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-08161-PGR Document 9 Filed 08/31/10 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

- 3 -

of removal in compliance with this Order no later than September 8, 2010.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08161-PGR Document 9 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 3