Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01189/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01189-0/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

27

28

1

 The defendant is advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the

caption of the Notice of Removal violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). 

-1-

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angela Sedillo, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-07-1189-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Connecticut General Life Insurance )

Company, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

The defendant removed this action on June 19, 2007 solely on the basis of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Having reviewed the defendant's Notice of

Removal 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.1

Case 2:07-cv-01189-PGR Document 8 Filed 06/21/07 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

27

28 -2-

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

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

defendant has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the Notice of

Removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to

determine the citizenship of the plaintiff.

The Notice of Removal fails to properly allege the citizenship of the plaintiff

inasmuch as it merely states that she is “a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona." 

This allegation of residency is insufficient as a matter of law under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332 because, as the Supreme Court has also repeatedly made clear,

[i]t 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.

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905); cf.,

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. ...

Case 2:07-cv-01189-PGR Document 8 Filed 06/21/07 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

27

28 -3-

[The] failure to specify Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of

diversity jurisdiction.")

In order to cure this pleading deficiency, the Court will require the defendant to

file an amended notice of removal that affirmatively states the citizenship of the plaintiff. 

The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with this order shall result in

the remand of this action without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Therefore,

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

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than July 9, 2007.

DATED this 21st day of June, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01189-PGR Document 8 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3