Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02407/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 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

27

28

1

 Plaintiff served Defendant by publication in the Mohave County Newspaper The

Standard over four consecutive weeks. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHRIS MARTINO II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GLEN A. CHAPMAN, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2407-PCT-MHM

ORDER

The above-captioned case is a contract dispute. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

Plaintiff pro se asserts that this Court's has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiff has requested that the Court enter default judgment in his favor in the sum of six

million dollars ($6,000,000.00), due to Defendant's failure to file a responsive pleading.1

Plaintiff has filed an affidavit alleging that he does not know Defendant's whereabouts but

states that Defendant's last known residence is in Kingman, Arizona. 

The Court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). See

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (when in doubt, a

Case 3:06-cv-02407-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/01/07 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

- 2 -

federal court must sua sponte evaluate whether it has subject matter jurisdiction); Mt.

Graham Red Squirrel v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1568, 1581 (9th Cir. 1993) (court has obligation to

raise issue of standing sua sponte). The court must dismiss an action when it appears that it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil

actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

In his affidavit, Plaintiff states that the Defendant's last known address is in Kingman,

Arizona. Plaintiff further states that Defendant's address, at present, is unknown by Plaintiff.

However, Plaintiff does not provide evidence nor does he even assert that Defendant now is

domiciled in another state. Because this action raises only state law contract claims, without

diversity of citizenship, the Court is required to dismiss this action without prejudice to

proceeding in a state court of general jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court directs Plaintiff to

show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely comply with this Order could result in

dismissal of this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any

order of the Court).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause, in writing, why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by March 23, 2007.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-02407-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2