Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00667/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00667-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry L. Carr; Rodney C. Carr, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Esurance Insurance Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-667-PHX-JAT

ORDER

“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

Cir. 2003). 

In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332. First, the notice of removal fails to allege a state of incorporation and a

principal place of business for Defendant. See Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d

1090, 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990). Second, the notice of removal states that “Plaintiff is a

resident” of Arizona, but it does not plead Plaintiff’s citizenship, nor does it acknowledge

that there are two Plaintiffs. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir.

2001).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 22, 2009, Defendant (as the party asserting

jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics,

Case 2:09-cv-00667-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/07/09 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 -

912 F.2d at 1092) shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging federal subject

matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction.

DATED this 7th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00667-JAT Document 9 Filed 05/07/09 Page 2 of 2