Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02624/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02624-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

The Camping Companies, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Perfect Health Insurance Company; et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 14-2624-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 notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the

citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899

(9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company).

More specifically, the Court finds that for alleging the citizenship of a corporation,

alleging the principal place of business as “not Arizona” is inadequate to allow this Court to

independently assess jurisdiction. Second, for alleging the citizenship of a limited liability

company (“LLC”), each member of the LLC must be identified and that person or entity’s

citizenship must be properly alleged.

Accordingly,

Case 2:14-cv-02624-JAT Document 26 Filed 02/20/15 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

1

 Judges should not give parties advice because advice, “would undermine district

judges’ role as impartial decision makers.” See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

IT IS ORDERED that by March 6, 2015, the removing Defendants shall file a

supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or

this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will be given

one opportunity to supplement to cure the defects in the jurisdictional assertions. The Court

will not issue additional orders to assist Defendants in pleading jurisdiction.1

 Therefore, if

the supplement to the notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this

case will be remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendants any further

opportunities to supplement.

DATED this 20th day of February, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-02624-JAT Document 26 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2