Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01505/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01505-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

 Although the complaint further alleges that “[j]urisdiction is also appropriate

under 28 U.S.C.A. §2201[,]” the Court notes that it is well established that § 2201 is

not a jurisdictional statute.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

Company,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Lexington Insurance Company,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01505-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

In a complaint filed on July 25, 2013, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.1

 Having

reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations therein are

insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint

curing the pleading deficiencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

Since it is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside of this Court's

limited subject matter jurisdiction unless the contrary is established by the party

Case 2:13-cv-01505-PGR Document 14 Filed 08/21/13 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 -

asserting jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,

377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court has long since, and

repeatedly, made clear that

[t]he 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.

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926). The plaintiff has

not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the complaint fails to affirmatively

set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine the citizenship of either party.

The jurisdictional allegations concerning the citizenship of the parties are

facially deficient because they merely state that the plaintiff is “a Wisconsin

corporation doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona” and that the

defendant is “a Delaware corporation licensed and doing business in Maricopa

County and doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona.” Since a

corporate party is a citizen of the state by which it was incorporated and of the state

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

citizenship jurisdiction is not properly set forth in a complaint unless all of this

required information is affirmatively alleged.

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

cures these pleading deficiencies by affirmatively setting forth each party’s state of

incorporation and state of its principal place of business will result in the dismissal

of this action without further notice 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 plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

Case 2:13-cv-01505-PGR Document 14 Filed 08/21/13 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 -

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than August 31, 2013.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01505-PGR Document 14 Filed 08/21/13 Page 3 of 3