Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02155/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02155-0/pdf.json

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

08cv2155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCNNN PARTNERS, LLP dba Golden

Paradise, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2155-L(JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Axis Surplus Insurance Company filed a complaint alleging federal subject

matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because the complaint fails to allege the facts

necessary to determine whether the parties are diverse, the action is dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,

790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). It possesses only that power authorized by the Constitution

or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is

constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject matter jurisdiction and may do

so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). A federal court must satisfy

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-02155-L-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/05/08 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 08cv2155

itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before proceeding to the merits of the case. 

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577, 583 (1999). 

The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is properly before the

court. See Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. General Tel. & Elec. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.

1979). The complaint must affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each party. Bautista v.

Pan Am. World Airlines, Inc., 828 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Kanter v. WarnerLambert, Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Plaintiff alleges it is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Illinois with its

principal place of business in Georgia, that Defendant OCNNN Properties, LLC (“OCNNN”) is

a corporation incorporated under the laws of California with its principal place of business in

California, that Defendant Highlander Senior Residence, LLC (“Highlander”) is a corporation

incorporated under the laws of California with its principal place of business in California, that

Defendant Martha Alvarez, deceased, was a California resident, and that Defendant and Ms.

Alvarez’s legal representative Eric Matos is a California resident. (Compl. at 1-2.) 

It is unclear from the allegations whether OCNNN and Highlander are corporations or

limited liability companies. Their respective designations as “LLC” indicates that they are

limited liability companies. The citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of

diversity jurisdiction is determined by examining the citizenship of each of its members. Carden

v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990). Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of each

of OCNNN’s and Highlander’s respective members. 

Plaintiff alleges Ms. Alvarez’s and Mr. Matos’s respective residencies. However, for

diversity purposes, a person is a citizen of a state in which he or she is domiciled. Kanter, 265

F.3d at 857. Plaintiff does not allege where Ms. Alvarez was or where Mr. Matos is domiciled. 

“[T]he diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency.” 

Id. “A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and thus is not

necessarily a citizen of that state.” Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege the 

citizenship of Ms. Alvarez and Mr. Matos for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See id. 

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-02155-L-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/05/08 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 08cv2155

Because the complaint does not allege the facts necessary to establish diversity as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

If Plaintiff can correct this pleading defect, it may file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1653. Any such amended complaint shall be filed no later than December 12, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-02155-L-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/05/08 Page 3 of 3