Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_20-cv-08077/USCOURTS-azd-3_20-cv-08077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Bradley Young,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Owners Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-08077-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subjectmatter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 

Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court 

determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 

action.” 

Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship 

between the plaintiff and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 

exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement 

when “all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons 

on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).

The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of 

proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the 

evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal 

Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to 

Case 3:20-cv-08077-DWL Document 6 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the 

actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 

857 (9th Cir. 2001). 

A corporation, whether incorporated in a state of the United States or in a foreign 

country, is “deemed a citizen of its place of incorporation and the location of its principal 

place of business.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 

F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994). 

As to individual natural persons, an allegation about an individual’s residence does 

not establish his or her citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. “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.” 

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). “To be a citizen of a state, a natural 

person must first be a citizen of the United States. The natural person’s state citizenship 

is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s 

domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to 

which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59 (emphasis added) (citations 

omitted). See also id. (“In this case, neither Plaintiffs’ complaint nor [Defendants’] 

notice of removal made any allegation regarding Plaintiffs’ state citizenship. Since the 

party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof, [Defendants’] failure to 

specify Plaintiffs’ state citizenship was fatal to Defendants’ assertion of diversity 

jurisdiction.”).

Plaintiff brings this action asserting diversity as the sole basis of the Court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff failed to allege his own citizenship. 

(Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also failed to allege the place of incorporation of both defendants. 

(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 6, 7.)

Case 3:20-cv-08077-DWL Document 6 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Plaintiff must amend the Complaint to correct these deficiencies.1 See NewGen, 

LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts may permit parties to 

amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the proceedings.”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that no later than April 29, 2020, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended 

complaint, the Clerk of the Court, without further notice, shall dismiss this case without 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated this 15th day of April, 2020.

1 This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiff’s right 

under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if she chooses to do so. 

See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015).

Case 3:20-cv-08077-DWL Document 6 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 3