Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08042/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08042-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

Renee Jewell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; BAC

Home Loan Servicing LP; Mortgage

Electronic Registration Services, Inc.;

Recontrust Company, NA; Bank of New

York Mellon, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8042-PCT-JAT

ORDER

On April 6, 2011, the Court issued the following 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). ...

Plaintiff has failed to allege a proper basis for federal subject matter

jurisdiction. However, on the face of the complaint, it appears the Court may

have jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

However, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts for this Court to determine

whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Specifically, Plaintiff must plead her own state citizenship, the citizenship of

any corporations (Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - -

(2010)), the citizenship of any partnerships (Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494

U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990)), and the amount in controversy

(28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)). Thus,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 4, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will

be dismissed without prejudice.

Doc. 5.

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/02/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

On April 27, 2011, the Court issued the following Order:

On April 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and alleged

diversity jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff alleged a citizenship for all of the

parties. However, Plaintiff failed to make a complete allegation with respect

to BAC Home Loan Servicing LP. Because BAC Home Loan Servicing LP

is a limited partnership, Plaintiff must allege the citizenship of each partner,

which Plaintiff failed to do. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 20, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a supplement

to her amended complaint alleging the citizenship of each member of BAC

Home Loan Servicing LP, or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for

lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Doc. 6.

Plaintiff timely filed a second amended complaint. Plaintiff made two jurisdictional

allegations regarding BAC Home Loan Servicing LP. First, Plaintiff stated, “Defendant

BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP[’s], ... address is 400 Countrywide Way SV-35, Simi Valley,

Ca 93065.” Doc. 8 at 2. Second, Plaintiff stated, “For diversity jurisdiction purposes, BAC

Home Loans Servicing LP is a subsidiary of ‘BAC’ whose designated home office is in

California. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP is, on information and belief, a citizen of

California.” Doc. 8 at 3.

In making this jurisdictional allegation, Plaintiff appears to believe that a subsidiary

takes on the citizenship of its parent. The law is that the citizenship of a partnership is

determined by the citizenship of its members. Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185,

195-96 (1990). However, on this record, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is

attempting to allege that “BAC” is the sole partner in BAC Home Loans Servicing LP. Thus,

the citizenship of “BAC” would be the citizenship of BAC Home Loans Servicing LP. Thus,

because the record is ambiguous regarding Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegation, the Court will

give Plaintiff a further opportunity to amend to allege federal subject matter jurisdiction.

On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking to stop

Plaintiff’s eviction from property located at 1155 Aveinda De La Golandorina, Bullhead

City, Arizona 86442. Plaintiff states that he has been given until April 1, 2011 to vacate the

property. Doc. 9 at 3. Obviously this deadline has already passed. The Court has reviewed

the motion and does not find any basis for considering the request without notice to

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/02/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff must give notice to Defendants and file proof with the Court

of how and when notice was given before the Court will consider the merits of the request

for injunctive relief.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a third amended complaint, properly

alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction by June 27, 2011, or this case will be dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not consider the request for

injunctive relief (Doc. 9) until Plaintiff gives notice to Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08042-JAT Document 10 Filed 06/02/11 Page 3 of 3