Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00773/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00773-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

Anita C. Kanu, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 07-00773-PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Sonny Rock, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

Introduction

Simultaneously with the filing of their complaint on April 12,

2007, pro plaintiffs, Anita C. Kanu and Caroline Ayodele, filed a

motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. 

See Doc. 1. Plaintiff Kanu alleges that she "was ordered off the

[subject] property in [sic] March 8, 2007 and given 19 days to

leave the property." Id. at 3. Currently she is seeking a

preliminary injunction "revoking the [Arizona Superior Court]

eviction proceeding pending the conclusion of the investigation by

the Federal Bureau of Investigation or pending the final

adjudication of this matter." Id. at 4.

Case 2:07-cv-00773-RCB Document 6 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Based upon these allegations, it appears that plaintiff Kanu's

eviction may be imminent. Therefore, in its discretion, the court

is considering this motion now even though answers or pre-answer

motions have yet to be filed. Likewise, in its discretion, the

court has determined that oral argument is not necessary. 

Discussion 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) provides that "[w]henever it appears

by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action." Consistent with that Rule, the court has an independent

obligation to examine its subject matter jurisdiction. Steel

Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118

S.Ct. 1003 (1998). And the court has "the authority to dismiss

actions sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction[.]" Molski v. Arby's

Huntington Beach, 359 F.Supp.2d 938, 943 (C.D.Cal. 2005) (citing

Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337,

1342 (9th Cir. 1981)). That is so because, as the Supreme Court

has long recognized, "'without jurisdiction the court cannot

proceed at all in any cause.'" Steel Company, 523 U.S. at 94, 118

S.Ct. at 1012 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19

L.Ed. 264 (1868)). "'A plaintiff suing in a federal court must

show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence

of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does

not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention

or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the

defect be corrected by amendment.'" Tosco Corp. v. Communities For

Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338 (1926)). 

Case 2:07-cv-00773-RCB Document 6 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Plaintiffs allege that jurisdiction is "proper[]" in this

court "because[] defendant Fremont [Investment and Loans] resides

in another state, California." Doc. 1 at 2. Therefore, evidently,

plaintiff is attempting to assert diversity jurisdiction based upon

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). That statute provides in relevant part that

district courts "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . .

citizens of different States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). "In

determining whether there is diversity between corporate parties,

'a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by

which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its

principal place of business.'" Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499 (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). "Thus, corporations are citizens of both the

state where they are incorporated and the state where they have

their principal place of business." Id. 

Presumably when plaintiff Kanu alleges that corporate

defendant Fremont "resides" in California, she means that that

defendant is a citizen of California for diversity purposes. 

Starting from that assumption, because plaintiff Kanu also is

alleging that plaintiff Caroline Ayodele has a California address

(and hence presumably is a California citizen), on the face of the

complaint complete diversity is lacking. That is so because

"[s]ubject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship

[under section 1332(a)] requires that no defendant have the same

citizenship as any plaintiff." Id. Diversity also is destroyed

here because from the complaint it appears that plaintiff Kanu is

an Arizona citizen, as are defendants Sonny Rock, Michael Heard,

Case 2:07-cv-00773-RCB Document 6 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

and Financial Enterprises. See Doc. 1 at 2. Thus complete

diversity is destroyed in two ways – by an Arizona citizen as a

plaintiff and citizens of Arizona as defendants, as well as by a 

California citizen as a plaintiff and a California citizen as a

defendant. Thus, because the court does not have subject matter

jurisdiction, it cannot address the merits of plaintiffs'

preliminary injunction motion. Indeed, as set forth above, this

lack of subject matter jurisdiction requires that the court dismiss

this action in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

This dismissal is without prejudice, however, to plaintiffs

filing and serving an amended complaint properly asserting subject

matter jurisdiction. Such a complaint shall be filed and served no

later than 20 days from the date hereof. If no such complaint is

filed, this action will be promptly dismissed with prejudice. 

To conclude, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a

preliminary injunction (doc.1) is DENIED; and

It is further ORDERED that this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to plaintiffs' filing and serving an amended complaint

properly alleging subject matter jurisdiction within twenty (20)

days of the date of this order; and

FINALLY, if plaintiffs fail to timely file and serve such an

amended complaint, the court will dismiss this action with

prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED.

DATED this 26th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00773-RCB Document 6 Filed 04/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:07-cv-00773-RCB Document 6 Filed 04/27/07 Page 5 of 5