Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00540/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00540-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

1

 It is possible that this pleading defect is cured elsewhere in this record, as the

undersigned has not undertaken to read every document previously filed in this case.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GameTech International, Inc., 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Trend Gaming Systems, L.L.C., 

Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-540-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Trend Gaming System’s, L.L.C.’s motion to reassign this

case a Magistrate Judge. Before the undersigned considers this motion, this Court must

undertake to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Belleville Catering Co.

v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Inquiring whether

the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every case.”).

The Court has reviewed the Complaint (Doc. #1), Counterclaim (Doc. #5), Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. #60), and First Amended Counterclaim (Doc. #66) in this case.

All of these documents plead that jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, none of these documents properly plead the citizenship of

Trend Gaming System, L.L.C.1

 See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437

Case 2:01-cv-00540-ECV Document 640 Filed 12/01/08 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

 Further, due to the age of this case, the parties must confirm the citizenship of each

party, member, or entity as of the date the complaint was filed.

- 2 -

F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that limited liability companies are citizens of every

state in which any member is a citizen).

Because a complaint and counterclaim have been filed, both parties have invoked the

jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, both parties have the burden of proving facts supporting

jurisdiction. See Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by noon, December 5, 2008, the parties shall file a joint

jurisdictional statement in which they properly allege federal subject matter jurisdiction. If

the parties fail to plead complete diversity sufficient to establish jurisdiction, this case will

be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.2

DATED this 1st day of December, 2008.

Case 2:01-cv-00540-ECV Document 640 Filed 12/01/08 Page 2 of 2