Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08089/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08089-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Navigators Insurance Company,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BR Consulting, Inc., et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8089-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

In a complaint filed on June 1, 2010, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the

jurisdictional allegations therein are insufficient as a matter of law to establish the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the

plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this

action. See 28 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

Case 3:10-cv-08089-PGR Document 7 Filed 06/03/10 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 -

dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The jurisdictional allegation concerning defendant Seung Heun Lee is

facially deficient because it merely states that he is “an individual residing at 80

Rufous Lane, Sedona, Arizona 86336.” It is black letter law that an allegation of

residency does not suffice for purposes of § 1332. See Steigleder v. McQuesten,

198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905) ("It 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.");

accord, Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001)

(Plaintiffs' complaint ... 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 of citizenship was fatal to [the]

assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") 

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint

that cures the pleading deficiency noted in this Order shall result in the dismissal

of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended

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

14, 2010. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately serve a

copy of this Order upon any defendant who has already been served with

Case 3:10-cv-08089-PGR Document 7 Filed 06/03/10 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 -

process.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08089-PGR Document 7 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 3