Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00705/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00705-0/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

Lieberman & Associates, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GVSW Surprise Plaza LLC; GVSW

Surprise Plaza 15, LLC; Glimcher Co., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-705-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). Additionally, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction

bears the burden of proving a jurisdictional basis exists. Id.

In this case, the Complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §

1332; Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006);

Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). First, the Complaint

fails to allege the citizenship of every member of each limited liability company. Second,

the Complaint fails to allege the state of incorporation and the principal place of business for

the corporate Plaintiff. Finally, the Complaint fails to allege any form of citizenship for

Defendant Glimcher.

Case 2:09-cv-00705-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by May 22, 2009, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without

prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended complaint shall not include

fictitiously-named defendants unless Plaintiff shows cause to allow them. See Craig v. U.S.,

413 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir. 1969).

DATED this 7th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00705-JAT Document 17 Filed 05/07/09 Page 2 of 2