Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00525/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00525-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

1

The Court is not making any ruling at this time regarding the amount

in controversy issue raised in the plaintiff’s pending Motion to Remand. If it

becomes necessary to do so, the Court will resolve that issue in due course.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allison Wood,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Company, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-00525-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”)

removed this action on March 23, 2015 solely on the basis of diversity of citizenship

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and § 1441. The action was reassigned

to the undersigned Judge on May 20, 2015. Having reviewed State Farm’s Notice

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

finds that State Farm has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden to the extent that

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

to determine the citizenship of either of the named parties.1

 In order to cure this

Case 2:15-cv-00525-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/21/15 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 -

jurisdictional deficiency, the Court will require State Farm to file an amended notice

of removal that properly and affirmatively alleges the citizenship of both named

parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. State Farm is advised that its failure to timely comply

with this Order will result in the remand of this action without further notice for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

With regard to the plaintiff’s citizenship, the Notice of Removal merely states

that “Plaintiff is an Arizona resident.” This is improper because an allegation of

residency is insufficient as a matter of law for purposes of establishing diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction. 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) (“Pfizer’s notice of removal ... 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 Defendants’ assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") 

With regard to it own citizenship, State Farm merely alleges that it “is an

Illinois corporation.” This an insufficient allegation of corporate citizenship. Since a

corporate party is a citizen of both the state by which it has been incorporated and

of the state where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), "an

allegation that a corporation is a citizen of a certain state (without more) is not an

allegation of fact, but a mere conclusion of law" that is inadequate to establish

diversity jurisdiction. Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446

Case 2:15-cv-00525-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/21/15 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 -

F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company shall file an amended notice of removal that properly states a jurisdictional

basis for this action no later than May 27, 2015.

DATED this 20th day of May, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-00525-PGR Document 14 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 3