Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

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

Sebastian Craynon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CitiMortgage, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-8081-PCT-JAT

ORDER

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued the following order:

Plaintiff filed a complaint that states, in total: “the Plaintiff, brings this

action to this Court to grant Quite Title to Sebastian W. Craynon Secured Party

pursuant to ARS 12-1101(a), ARS 12-1102 for Defendant CitiMortgage Inc.

is not the creditor, real party in interest, or note holder. Plaintiff [sic] request

for relief and damages for court cost [sic], reasonable attorney [sic] fees, Quiet

Title, and damages in accordance with ARS 12-1103 and ARS 33-420.” Doc.

1 at 1. Plaintiff signed this complaint on page 2. Plaintiff then attached 54

pages of additional pleadings. The one page complaint is insufficient to

establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Specifically, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result,

they can hear only 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 case in federal district court, he must show that the federal

court is authorized to hear the case. And, as discussed above, the complaint

fails to establish jurisdiction.

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that by August 12, 2011, Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will

be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/18/11 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 -

Doc. 9.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 11, 2011, alleging both federal

question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 11. However, in his demand, Plaintiff

seeks relief under only Arizona statutes. Thus, this Court does not have federal question

jurisdiction. Further, with respect to diversity jurisidiction, Plaintiff fails to plead the

citizenship of the corporate defendant. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - -

- U.S. - - - (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation). As a result, Plaintiff still fails

to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff will be given one last opportunity to amend his

complaint to fully allege federal subject matter jurisdiction. If the to-be-filed second

amended complaint fails to allege jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed without Plaintiff

being given any further opportunities to amend. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint by September

9, 2011, properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed

without prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08081-JAT Document 12 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 2