Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00055/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

Jill Wiele,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Verdes Family Investment

Partnership, L.P.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-00055-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Defendant Vedres Family Investment Partnership, L.P., removed this action

on January 13, 2014 solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed Defendant’s Notice of Removal to

determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists in this Court, the Court finds that the

defendant has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the notice of

removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine

the citizenship of either party. In order to cure this jurisdictional deficiency, the

Court will require the defendant to file an amended notice of removal that properly

and affirmatively alleges the citizenship of both named parties. See 28 U.S.C. §

1653. The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with this Order will

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

Case 2:14-cv-00055-PGR Document 6 Filed 01/14/14 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

1

Since only a corporation or an individual may be a citizen for purposes

of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the amended notice of removal must set forth

any sub-layers of partners or members that the defendant may have. See Hart v.

Terminex International, 336 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir.2003).

- 2 -

jurisdiction. 

First, the jurisdictional allegation regarding the plaintiff is deficient because the

notice of removal merely alleges that “plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County,

Arizona.” An allegation of residency is insufficient as a matter of law under § 1332

because, as the Supreme Court has 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) (“[Defendant’s] notice

of removal ... 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 citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of

diversity jurisdiction.")

Second, the jurisdictional allegation regarding the defendant is deficient as a

matter of law because the notice of removal merely alleges that “Defendant is a

California limited partnership with its principal place of business in California.” The

Supreme Court has also made clear that the citizenship of a partnership for § 1332

purposes is the citizenship of each its general and limited partners.1

 See Carden v.

Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990). The amended notice of removal must

thus specify each general and limited partner of the defendant by name, and must

Case 2:14-cv-00055-PGR Document 6 Filed 01/14/14 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 -

specify that partner’s state of citizenship. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Vedres Family Investment Partnership, L.P.

shall file an amended notice of removal in compliance with this Order no later than

January 22, 2014.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2014.

Case 2:14-cv-00055-PGR Document 6 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 3