Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01257/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01257-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

KB Home Phoenix, Inc. 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Owners Insurance Company, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1257-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Defendant Owners Insurance Company removed this action solely on the

basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Having reviewed defendant’s

Amended Notice of Removal (doc. #4) to determine if subject matter jurisdiction

exists in this Court, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal is facially deficient

because it fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to

determine the citizenship of either named party.

As the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear,

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff [or removing defendant], 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 [or

remand] the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Amended Notice of Removal merely alleges that the plaintiff “was and

now is an Arizona corporation,” and that the defendant “was and now is a foreign

corporation licensed to do business and is doing business within the State of

Arizona.” These allegations are insufficient as a matter of law because a

corporation is a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and of the state

where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), and both

must be affirmatively stated in order for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be

properly alleged. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America,

446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970) (“[A]n 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" that is inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction.) Furthermore, the

diversity-related allegations in the Amended Notice of Removal are inadequate

given the jurisdictional allegation in the defendant’s answer which states in part

that the defendant “is an Ohio corporation, domiciled in the State of Arizona[.]”

(Emphasis added). 

In order to cure these pleading deficiencies, the defendant shall file a

second amended notice of removal that affirmatively sets forth the citizenship of

each party. The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with this

Order shall result in the immediate remand of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant Owners Insurance Company shall file a

second amended notice of removal no later than August 24, 2007 that properly

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

alleges a jurisdictional basis for this action.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01257-PGR Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3