Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00381/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00381-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

David Lane Frank, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London

Syndicate 4141,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0381-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if jurisdiction

existed over the suit as originally brought by the plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The

removing party bears the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction. 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

I. Amount in Controversy

District courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of

different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If

the amount in controversy is not facially evident from the complaint, the removing party

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds

the jurisdictional threshold and may not rely on conclusory allegations. Matheson v.

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2003); Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:10-cv-00381-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/25/10 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

- 2 -

Defendant Lloyds’s Notice of Removal (doc. #1) alleges federal subject matter

jurisdiction based on diversity. However, the amount in controversy is not evident from

the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, and Defendant only makes a conclusory allegation that

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, stating, “This Court has original jurisdiction

over the civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in that Plaintiff alleges the matter

in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs . . . .” 

Defendant has therefore failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the amount in

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. 

II. Diversity of Citizenship

A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation as well as the state of its

principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The same test is used to determine

the citizenship of a foreign corporation. Nike, Inc. v. Commercial Iberica de Exclusivas

Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994). An unincorporated entity is a citizen

of every state or foreign country in which each member of the entity is a citizen. Carden

v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195 (1990). Defendant has failed to name and allege

the citizenship of its members, and therefore has not satisfied its burden to plead and

prove facts supporting the Court’s jurisdiction. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant show cause by March 29, 2010,

why this action should not be remanded to the Superior Court for lack of federal subject

matter jurisdiction. 

DATED this 25th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00381-NVW Document 7 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2