Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08022/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08022-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Torts to Land

---

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

In order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

complete diversity of citizenship must exist. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that diversity

jurisdiction does not exist unless each Defendant is a citizen of a different state from each Plaintiff.

Owen Equipment and Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

High Desert Land Company, ) No. CV 07-8022-PCT-PGR

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

Mohave Engineering Associates, )

Inc. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

On June 4, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging jurisdiction based solely on

diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 2006).1

 Having reviewed the

Complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations are inadequate to establish the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch as the Complaint fails to properly allege the

citizenship of the parties.

The Complaint states that the "Plaintiff is a California corporation, licensed to do

business and doing business as a real estate developer in Arizona." For diversity purposes,

a corporation is a citizen both of the state in which it was incorporated and the state in which

it has its principle place of business. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(1); Montrose Chemical Corp.

Case 3:07-cv-08022-PGR Document 4 Filed 06/13/07 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 -

of Cal. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, a complaint

involving a corporate party which fails to affirmatively allege both the corporation’s state of

incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of business fails to allege

diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d

1187,1190 (9th Cir. 1970).

The Complaint further avers that the "Defendant is a licensed engineering firm, doing

business in the state of Arizona. Although the Complaint does not specify whether this entity

is a corporation, other than in the heading of the pleading, the Court assumes that it is. As

such, this jurisdictional allegation is insufficient based on the reasoning set forth above.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, and the Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly asserting a

jurisdictional bases for this action no later than July 3, 2007. The Plaintiff's failure to timely

comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.

DATED this 13th day of June, 2007.

 

Case 3:07-cv-08022-PGR Document 4 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2