Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01843/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01843-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

General Electric Capital Business

Asset Funding Corporation of

Connecticut, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

East Coast Foods I, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1843-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a complaint filed on September 20, 2011, the plaintiffs allege that the

Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the

jurisdictional allegations therein are patently insufficient as a matter of law to

establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will therefore

require the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional

basis for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also, Smith v. McCullough, 270

U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926) ("The established rule is that a plaintiff,

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,

Case 2:11-cv-01843-PGR Document 8 Filed 09/21/11 Page 1 of 4
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 jurisdiction, the amended complaint must set forth any sub-layers of

partners or members the limited liability companies may have.

- 2 -

the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same,

must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The existence of diversity jurisdiction is not evident from the face of the

complaint inasmuch as the complaint fails to properly allege the citizenship of six

of the seven named parties. First, as to the limited liability company parties, i.e.,

plaintiff CEF Funding V, LLC and defendants East Coast Foods I, LLC and East

Coast Foods II, LLC, the complaint improperly attempts to allege their citizenship

as if they are corporations notwithstanding that it has been clearly established for

years that a limited liability company cannot be treated as a corporation for

purposes of alleging citizenship under § 1332. See Johnson v. Columbia

Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Notwithstanding

LLCs' corporate traits, ... every circuit that has addressed the question treats

them like partnerships for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. ... We therefore

join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every

state of which its owners/members are citizens.") Since the complaint fails to set

forth the citizenship of any member of these limited liability companies, the Court

will require the plaintiff to specifically identity in its amended complaint each LLC

member by name, specifically allege the type of business entity that any nonindividual member is, and affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each

member.1

Second, as to the individual defendants, i.e., John Lopis, Stacey Lopis, and

Alfred Duff, the complaint improperly attempts to allege their citizenship by setting

Case 2:11-cv-01843-PGR Document 8 Filed 09/21/11 Page 2 of 4
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

2

 The parties are advised that the complete capitalization of a party’s

name in the caption of any document filed with the Court violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3)

unless that party’s name is completely capitalized in its normal use.

- 3 -

forth the location where each has a residence. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198

U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905) ("It 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."); accord,

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. ...

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

diversity jurisdiction.") The plaintiffs must affirmatively set forth the citizenship of

each individual defendant in the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs are advised that their failure to timely or sufficiently comply

with this order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

October 3, 2011.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall immediately provide a

/ / /

Case 2:11-cv-01843-PGR Document 8 Filed 09/21/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

copy of this order to any defendant already served with process.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01843-PGR Document 8 Filed 09/21/11 Page 4 of 4