Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01367/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01367-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Account Receivable

---

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

1

 The defendant is advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the 

 caption of the Notice of Removal violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). 

-1-

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

S/H Ahwatukee, LLC, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1367-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

The defendant removed this action on July 16, 2007 solely on the basis of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Having reviewed the defendant's Notice of

Removal to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists in this Court, the Court

finds that the Notice of Removal is facially deficient because it fails to properly

allege the existence of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.1

As the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear,

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff [or removing defendant], suing

in 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 [or

remand] the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - -2-

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). The

defendant has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the Notice of

Removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to

determine the citizenship of the plaintiffs.

The jurisdictional allegation in the Notice of Removal regarding the

citizenship of the plaintiffs is facially deficient because it, like the complaint,

merely states that the “Plaintiffs are Arizona limited liability companies.” This

allegation is insufficient as a matter of law because a limited liability company is not

treated as a corporation for purposes of determining whether diversity exists under 

§ 1332. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

2006) ("Notwithstanding LLCs' corporate traits, ... every circuit that has addressed the

question treats them like partnerships for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. ... We

therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of

every state of which its owners/members are citizens.") What is thus required in the

Notice of Removal is an affirmative identification of each member of the plaintiff limited

liability companies and an affirmative statement of the citizenship of each such member.

In order to cure these pleading deficiencies, the Court will require the defendant

to file an amended notice of removal that properly states the citizenship of the plaintiffs. 

The defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with this order shall result in

the remand of this action without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant shall file an amended notice of removal

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than August 17, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order Setting Scheduling Conference

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - -3-

(doc. #7) is stayed pending the filing of an amended notice of removal that

complies with this Order.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01367-PGR Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3