Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01011/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:1 U.S. Arbitration Act

---

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 Court notes that it is not making any ruling through this Order as to

whether the plaintiff has properly alleged that the amount in controversy meets

the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cold Stone Creamery, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Cynthia and Frank Caperino,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1011-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a Petition to Compel Arbitration filed on May 15, 2012, the plaintiff

alleges that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds

that the citizenship-related jurisdictional allegations therein are insufficient as a

matter of law to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 The Court

will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly stating a

jurisdictional basis for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also, Smith v.

McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926) ("The established rule

Case 2:12-cv-01011-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/16/12 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 -

is that a plaintiff, 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 the case, unless the defect be corrected by

amendment.")

The existence of diversity jurisdiction is not evident from the face of the

complaint inasmuch as the complaint fails to properly allege the citizenship of the

defendants, who are merely alleged to be “living in California.” This is insufficient

as a matter of law because what is required is an allegation of citizenship, not of

residency. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617

(1905) ("It has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly

different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and

regulating the jurisdiction of the ... courts of the United States; and that a mere

averment of residence in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in

that state for the purpose of jurisdiction."); accord, Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co.,

265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiffs' complaint ... state[s] that Plaintiffs

were 'residents' of California. But the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. ... [The] failure to specify

Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") 

The plaintiff must affirmatively set forth the citizenship of each individual

defendant in the amended complaint.

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely or sufficiently comply with

this Order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of

Case 2:12-cv-01011-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/16/12 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 -

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

May 25, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately provide a

copy of this order to any defendant already served with process.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01011-PGR Document 7 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 3