Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00054/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Property Damage (P.I.)

---

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

Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., a foreign

corporation, individually and as subrogee

for its insured Arizona Oncology Service,

Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Johnson Controls Inc.,

Metro Mechanical Inc.,

Dimplex Thermal Solutions/Koolant

Koolers,

Jokae Construction Co., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0054-PHX-JAT

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). In this case, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. 

Specifically, Plaintiff states that both Arizona Oncology Services and Defendant

Jokake Construction Company are citizens of the state of Arizona. Therefore, there is not

diversity unless the citizenship of a subrogee is disregarded for purposes of determining

diversity.

Next, Plaintiff states that three parties are corporations, but fails to allege the principal

place of business for any of the corporations. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181,

Case 2:11-cv-00054-JAT Document 28 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that one party is a “business entity” but

does not allege what kind of entity. This distinction is significant because not all entities

determine citizenship in the same manner. Compare id. (discussing a corporation) with

Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)

(discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company).

However, Plaintiff was not the party that invoked the jurisdiction of this Court;

Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. did when it filed the notice of removal. As a result,

IT IS ORDERED that by April 4, 2011, Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (as the

party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Lew

v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986)) shall file an amended notice of removal properly

alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal

subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00054-JAT Document 28 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 2