Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02360/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02360-0/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

WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE )

COMPANY, a New Hampshire Stock ) No. CIV 06-2360 PHX RCB

Company, )

 )

Plaintiff, ) O R D E R

 )

vs. ) 

 )

YADIRA RAMIREZ, a married )

woman, et al., )

 )

Defendants. ) )

This matter arises out of an action filed by Plaintiff Western

World Insurance Company pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act,

28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., seeking the resolution of legal questions

implicated in related personal injury and insurance coverage

disputes that have apparently been pending in the state courts. 

Compl. (doc. # 1). Plaintiff's complaint attempts to invoke the

diversity jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id.

Having carefully reviewed the matter, it occurs to the Court that

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff, by

failing to properly allege the citizenship of all parties, has not 

Case 2:06-cv-02360-RCB Document 20 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

sufficiently pleaded the basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires the Court to

dismiss any action over which it appears to lack jurisdiction. The

subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is

defined by Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1; Livingston v.

Story, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 632, 656 (1835). Although a claim for

relief must contain a "short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court's jurisdiction depends," see Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(1), the Ninth Circuit has held that, where the statements in

the complaint are sufficient for the district court to recognize

that it has jurisdiction, the particular congressional statute

conferring jurisdiction need not be specifically pleaded. Aguirre

v. Auto. Teamsters, 633 F.2d 168, 174 (9th Cir. 1980).

The diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts exists in all

civil actions between citizens of different states in which the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). A

party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction need only allege--

not prove-- the actual citizenship of the relevant parties such

that the district court may determine whether there exists complete

diversity. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

Cir. 2001); Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 447 (1892). 

In Kanter, the Ninth Circuit explained the simple allegations

needed to establish a natural person's state of citizenship: 

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. . . . . A person

residing in a given state is not necessarily

Case 2:06-cv-02360-RCB Document 20 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

domiciled there, and thus is not necessarily a

citizen of that state.

Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The

distinction between domicile and residence is an uncontroversial

principle to which the Supreme Court has spoken long ago:

. . . [A]n averment that a party resided within

the State or the district in which the suit was

brought was not sufficient to support the

jurisdiction, because in the common use of

words a resident might not be a citizen, and

therefore it was not stated expressly and

beyond ambiguity that he was a citizen of the

State, which was the fact on which the

jurisdiction depended under the provisions of

the Constitution and of the Judiciary Act.

Shaw, 145 U.S. at 447 (1892).

In the case at hand, it is apparent from the face of the

complaint that Plaintiff seeks to invoke the diversity jurisdiction

of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See Compl. (doc. # 1)

¶ 18. However, the Court need not look beyond the second page of

the complaint to see the deficiency of the jurisdictional

allegations. As to the citizenship of the individual Defendants,

Plaintiff avers they are "resident[s] of Yuma County, Arizona." 

Id. ¶¶ 2-4, 6. These allegations are defective for two reasons.

First, the complaint does not speak to the citizenship of the

parties at the time this action was commenced. It is well settled

that allegations invoking diversity jurisdiction must show that

complete diversity existed at the time the action was filed. 

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428

(1991); see also Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93, n. 1 (1957)

(federal jurisdiction depends on facts in existence at the time the

complaint is filed).

Case 2:06-cv-02360-RCB Document 20 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Second, the amended complaint merely alleges the Defendants'

state of residence and not their state of domicile or citizenship. 

In the absence of an affirmative allegation of Defendants' state of

domicile at the time of the filing of this action, the Court cannot

simply assume their state of citizenship based on where they reside

or have resided. Because the record is devoid of facts supporting

diversity jurisdiction, this case should be dismissed. 

The Court is mindful that "[d]efective allegations of

jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate

courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316

F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2002) ("The primary purpose of section 1653

is to permit correction of incorrect statements about extant

jurisdiction."). Moreover, a responsive pleading not having been

filed yet, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff may, as a matter of

course, choose to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to cure the defective

jurisdictional allegations. Alternatively, if Plaintiff still

believes that the jurisdictional allegations of its original

complaint are sufficient, notwithstanding the concerns raised in

this order, the Court will allow Plaintiff 10 (ten) days within the

date of entry of this order within which to serve and file a

memorandum of law, if it so chooses, setting forth the reasons in

support of its position.

Finally, the Court acknowledges that it currently has before

it two motions to dismiss filed by Defendants on February 1, 2007

(doc. ## 8-9). However, the Court is not at liberty to proceed on

the basis of hypothetical jurisdiction to reach the merits of those

motions. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S.

Case 2:06-cv-02360-RCB Document 20 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

83, 94-95. Those motions will therefore remain under advisement

pending Plaintiff's decision to amend its complaint, file a

memorandum of law in support of its original complaint, or await

the dismissal of this action without prejudice to its right of

seeking relief in an appropriate court. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED allowing Plaintiff 10 (ten) days within the date

of entry of this order within which to serve and file a memorandum

of law, if it so chooses, setting forth any reasons why its

original complaint should not be dismissed for failure to

adequately plead the jurisdictional allegations of subject matter

jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not file such memorandum of law,

and does not amend its complaint within the 10 (ten) days allotted

for that purpose, Plaintiff's complaint (doc. # 1) will be

dismissed without prejudice to its right of seeking relief in an

appropriate court.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-02360-RCB Document 20 Filed 06/26/07 Page 5 of 5