Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00035/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

Fannie Mae, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

H&B II, LLC; Comanche 18, LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0035-PHX-JAT

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 notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, Defendants fail to identify the citizenship of all members of the

limited liability companies. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899

(9th Cir. 2006) (limited liability companies take on the citizenship of their members). Further,

Defendants fail to allege whether Fannie Mae, as a corporation organized and existing in the

District of Columbia, can ever qualify for diversity jurisdiction. See Handcock Fin. Corp.

v. Fed. Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp., 492 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that a

corporation that is chartered by the federal government and has its principal place of business

in the District of Columbia “has citizenship in no particular state for diversity purposes”);

Case 2:12-cv-00035-JAT Document 6 Filed 01/06/12 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

1

 The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient

to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any

previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d

689, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

- 2 -

Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co., 2009 WL 160359, 3-4 (D.

Ariz. 2009) (same).

Further, Defendants fail to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Specifically, the Complaint seeks the appointment of a receiver. Defendants fail to explain

how appointment of a receiver translates to damages in excess of $75,000. See Valdez v.

Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the removing party must

establish the amount in controversy is met by a preponderance of the evidence: “a conclusory

allegation neither overcomes the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, nor

satisfies the defendant’s burden of setting forth, in the removal petition itself, the underlying

facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the applicable dollar

value”(internal quotations omitted)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that because immediate, emergency relief is sought by Plaintiffs,

by Monday, January 9, 2012, Defendants shall file an amended notice of removal properly

alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal

subject matter jurisdiction.1

DATED this 5th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00035-JAT Document 6 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2