Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08033/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08033-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

 Additionally, even if Mr. Batikh is also the Trustee, he would be required to obtain counsel

to appear on behalf of the Trust. See Diversified Metal Products v. T-Bow Co. Trust, 158

F.R.D. 660, 664-65 (D. Idaho 1994) (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d

696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ziad Batikh, Hawkeye Ridge Family

Trust, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Central Mortgage Co., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8033-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff Ziad Batikh brings this suit as beneficiary of the Hawkeye Ridge Family

Trust. Doc. 1 at 1. However, “the beneficiary of a trust generally is not the real party in

interest and may not sue in the name of the trust.” Spain v. EMC Mortg. Co., 2009 WL

464983, *6 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1148 (9th Cir.

2004). “Thus, as a trust beneficiary, plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf of

the trust.” Id.1

In addition to the Court’s standing concern raised above, the Court also has a

jurisdictional concern regarding this Court’s authority to preside over this case. Specifically,

federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, federal courts may hear only

Case 3:11-cv-08033-JAT Document 14 Filed 04/08/11 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 -

those cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized them to adjudicate: namely,

cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United

States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The

party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving jurisdiction. Id. In this case, because

Plaintiff filed this suit in federal court, Plaintiff must show that the federal court is authorized

to hear the case.

Plaintiff’s allegation of jurisdiction in this case is that Defendants are residents of or

doing business in Arizona, and that Defendants were doing business as institutions organized

under the laws of the State of Arizona. Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff’s claim in this case is to “quiet

title.” Doc. 1 at 3. None of these allegations establish that this Court has federal subject

matter jurisdiction to hear this case.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 6, 2011, Plaintiff shall show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for lack of standing. If Plaintiff fails to comply, this case will be

dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by May 20, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to comply,

this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08033-JAT Document 14 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 2