Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01247/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01247-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/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

BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP,,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Green Planet, Inc.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01247-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

The defendant removed this action on June 21, 2013 solely on the basis of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed

the defendant’s Notice of Removal of Action 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 properly allege the existence of diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction. 

The defendant has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden regarding the

citizenship of the plaintiff in that the notice of removal merely states that the plaintiff

is an Arizona limited liability partnership with its principal place of business in

Arizona. This allegation is insufficient as a matter of law because to properly plead

diversity jurisdiction when a partnership is a named party, the notice of removal must

Case 2:13-cv-01247-PGR Document 6 Filed 06/25/13 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

1

 Since only a corporation or an individual may be a citizen for purposes of

§ 1332, the amended notice of removal must set forth any sublayers of partners or

other non-citizen entities that the plaintiff may have. If any of the plaintiff’s partners

are individuals, their state of citizenship, not their state of residency, must be

affirmatively alleged.

2

 Although the complaint alleges that the defendant “maintains a place of

business” in Riverside, California, that is not sufficient to cure the pleading deficiency

in the notice of removal because the Court cannot determine from that allegation

where the defendant has its principal place of business.

- 2 -

affirmatively allege the citizenship of each individual partner, whether general or

limited, since a partnership is not a “citizen” for purposes of § 1332.1

 Carden v.

Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990).

The defendant has also not properly alleged its own citizenship since the

notice of removal merely states that it is a California corporation. Since a corporate

party is a citizen of the state by which it has been incorporated and of the state

where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "an 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.2

 Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d

1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970).

 In order to cure these jurisdictional pleading deficiencies, the Court will

require the defendant to file an amended notice of removal that properly and

affirmatively identifies each partner of the plaintiff and each partner’s citizenship,

and properly alleges its own state of incorporation and the state in which it has its

principal place of business. The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply

with this order will result in the remand of this action without further notice for lack

/ / /

Case 2:13-cv-01247-PGR Document 6 Filed 06/25/13 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 -

of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall file an amended notice of removal

in compliance with this Order no later than July 8, 2013.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01247-PGR Document 6 Filed 06/25/13 Page 3 of 3