Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00023/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

Everest Indemnity Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Apollo Fire, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-0023-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 11, 2009, this Court ordered:

In this case, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332; Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1990) (a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated

and the state where it has its principal place of business).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by February 25, 2009, Plaintiff (who is the party

asserting jurisdiction and therefore the party with the burden of pleading

jurisdiction, see id.) shall file an amended complaint properly alleging federal

subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for

lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is cautioned that it will be given

one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdiction defects. The Court will not

issue additional sua sponte show cause orders to advise Plaintiff how to plead

jurisdiction. Therefore, if the amended complaint fails to plead federal subject

matter jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed without the Court sua sponte

granting Plaintiff any further opportunities to amend.

Doc. #12.

On February 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint

still fails to plead a state of incorporation or a principal place of business for either the

Case 2:09-cv-00023-JAT Document 16 Filed 02/27/09 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

1

 The amended complaint uses the word “domicile” to refer to the “location” of both

parties. However, the word domicile does not equal a principal place of business, or a state

of incorporation, both of which are required. For example, the state of domicile is relevant

for an individual as the individual’s permanent home, but “permanent home” is not part of

the inquiry for a corporation. Compare Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 265 F.3d 853, 857-858

(9th Cir. 2001) and Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).

- 2 -

corporate plaintiff or the corporate defendant.1 Plaintiff having been given an opportunity

to amend to properly allege federal subject matter jurisdiction and having failed to do so,

IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject

matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00023-JAT Document 16 Filed 02/27/09 Page 2 of 2