Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01367/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01367-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Account Receivable

---

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 1

 The Court notes that even if Y-P Ahwatukee Square, LLC is an

appropriate plaintiff, the Amended Notice of Removal still fails to properly allege

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

S/H Ahwatukee, LLC, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1367-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Because the defendant removed this action solely on the basis of diversity

of citizenship jurisdiction without properly stating the citizenship of the plaintiffs,

stated in the complaint to be S/H Ahwatukee, LLC and YP-Ahwatukee, LLC, the

Court ordered the defendant to file an amended notice of removal that properly

stated a jurisdictional basis for this action. Pursuant to that order, the defendant

filed an Amended Notice of Removal (doc. #13) on August 31, 2007. In the

amended notice, the defendant, stating its belief that the complaint was brought

in the name of the wrong plaintiff entities and that the proper plaintiffs are in fact

two different entities, S/H Ahwatukee Square, LLC and Y-P Ahwatukee Square,

LLC, proceeded to allege the citizenship of those latter entities.1

 On September

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 16 Filed 09/14/07 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

its citizenship because its member Young Properties is merely alleged to be a

“California entity and citizen of California”. Without knowing what type of

business entity Young Properties is, the Court has no way of knowing the basis

for the allegation that it is a California citizen.

2

 The Court also notes that there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure permitting a plaintiff to file any “response” to a notice of removal other

than a motion to remand.

- 2 -

12, 2007, the parties, noting that they are close to settling this matter, filed a joint

motion seeking an extension of time through September 28, 2007, for the 

defendant to file its response to the complaint and for the plaintiffs to file a

response to the Amended Notice of Removal.2

The Court does not know at this time whether it acquired subject matter

jurisdiction over this action as of the date of removal because the citizenship of

the named plaintiffs still has not been properly alleged. While the defendant may

well be correct that the incorrect plaintiffs were named in the complaint, it is

improper for it to base a removal on its unilateral belief as to who the correct

plaintiffs should be. The defendant’s obligation upon removal is to allege the

facts necessary for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the

action based on the record as it exists on the date of removal. If different

plaintiffs should be substituted into this action, then that issue can be resolved in

due course, either through the defendant filing an appropriate motion as

permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for the plaintiffs amending

the complaint as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after the

initial issue of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved.

The only issue that the Court is thus interested in resolving at this time is

whether diversity of citizenship jurisdiction existed both as of the time this action

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 16 Filed 09/14/07 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

- 3 -

was commenced in the Maricopa County Superior Court and as of the time it was

removed to this Court. As the removing party, it is the defendant’s burden to

show that subject matter jurisdiction properly exists, California ex rel. Lockyer v.

Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 974

(2005), and as of this date it has failed to do so. The Court will therefore give the

parties until September 28, 2007 to either settle this matter or for the defendant to

file a second amended notice of removal properly alleging that subject matter

jurisdiction existed over this action, as then constituted, as of the date of removal. 

Since the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, the

failure to timely resolve the jurisdictional issue to the Court’s satisfaction will

result in the remand of this action. Id. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time re 

(1) Plaintiffs’ Response to Amended Notice of Removal and (2) Defendant’s

Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. #15) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall file a second

amended notice of removal properly stating the citizenship of the named plaintiffs 

no later than September 28, 2007.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 16 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 3