Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08025/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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 Court notes that the jurisdictional allegations in defendant Fairmont

Insurance Company’s cross-claim (Doc. 19) and defendant Continental Casualty

Company’s cross-claim (Doc. 26) also fail to properly set forth the parties’

citizenship.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Highland Village Partners, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-8025-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a complaint filed on February 9, 2012, the plaintiffs alleged that the Court

has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action solely pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the complaint upon the reassignment of this

action to the undersigned Judge, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations

in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of

subject matter jurisdiction as the plaintiffs have failed to properly allege the

citizenship of any party.1

 The Court will therefore require the plaintiffs to file an

amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action. See 28

Case 3:12-cv-08025-PGR Document 29 Filed 05/07/12 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 -

U.S.C. § 1653; see also, Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338,

339 (1926) ("The established rule is that a plaintiff, suing in federal court, must

show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is

essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the

defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case,

unless the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The allegations in the complaint regarding the citizenship of the six

corporate parties are facially deficient because they merely set forth the state in

which the corporations are said to be domiciled and that is inadequate as a

matter of law. It is well-established that in order to properly plead the citizenship

of a corporation for diversity jurisdiction purposes, the complaint must

affirmatively set forth the state by which it has been incorporated and the state

where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see also, Fifty

Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.

1970) ("It follows that 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. ... The

facts must be alleged from which it may be ‘deemed’ to be a citizen - i.e. the state

in which it was incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of

business.”) 

The allegation in the complaint regarding the citizenship of defendant

Highland Village Partners, LLC is also facially deficient as a matter of law

because it merely states that it is a limited liability company domiciled in Arizona.

It is also well-established that the citizenship of a limited liability company for

diversity jurisdiction purposes is the citizenship of each of its members. See

Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)

Case 3:12-cv-08025-PGR Document 29 Filed 05/07/12 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

2

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

of § 1332 jurisdiction, the amended complaint must set forth any sub-layers of

partners or members the limited liability company may have.

- 3 -

("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.") Since the

complaint fails to set forth the citizenship of any member of this defendant, the

Court will require the plaintiffs to specifically identity in its amended complaint

each member of the LLC by name, specifically allege the type of business entity

that any non-individual member is, and affirmatively allege the state of citizenship

of each member.2

The plaintiffs are advised that their failure to timely or sufficiently comply

with this order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file an amended

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-08025-PGR Document 29 Filed 05/07/12 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

3

 The parties are advised that the complete capitalization of a party’s

name in the caption of any document filed with the Court violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3)

unless that party’s name is completely capitalized in its normal use. The caption

of the amended complaint, as must the captions in all future documents filed in

this action, must comply with the local rule.

- 4 -

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May

21, 2012.3

DATED this 7th day of May, 2012.

Case 3:12-cv-08025-PGR Document 29 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 4