Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00105/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00105-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc.; Jackson

Hole Partners, LP; Grand Teton Partners,

LP, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Domino’s Pizza, LLC; TISM, Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0105-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; Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990)

(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);

Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of a

partnership).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by February 24, 2010, Defendant Domino’s Pizza LLC (as the

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

Industrial Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092) shall file an amended notice of removal properly

Case 2:10-cv-00105-JAT Document 15 Filed 02/10/10 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

 The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient

to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any

previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d

689, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

2

 The Court should not give a party advice because advice undermines the district

judge’s role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

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

subject matter jurisdiction.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is cautioned that it will be given one

opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional allegations. The Court will not issue

additional show cause orders to assist Defendant in pleading jurisdiction.2

 Therefore, if the

amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be

remanded without the Court granting Defendant any further opportunity to amend.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00105-JAT Document 15 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2