Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08048/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 defendants are advised that the complete capitalization of the

parties' names in the caption of the Notice of Removal of Civil Action violates

LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard David Shumpert, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Ryyan Knupp, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-8048-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

The defendants removed this action on April 23, 2008 solely on the basis of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having

reviewed the defendants’ Notice of Removal of Civil Action to determine if subject

matter jurisdiction exists in this Court, the Court finds that the notice of removal is

facially deficient because it fails to properly allege the existence of diversity of

citizenship jurisdiction.1

As the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear,

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff [or removing defendant], 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

Case 3:08-cv-08048-PGR Document 8 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 The Court notes that if the removing defendants are in fact citizens of

Arizona, then removal of this action was procedurally improper under the forum

defendant rule. See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.

2006) (“Separate and apart from the statute conferring diversity jurisdiction, 28

U.S.C. § 1332, [28 U.S.C.] § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”

- 2 -

called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss [or

remand] the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). The

defendants have not met their jurisdictional pleading burden because the notice

of removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to

determine the citizenship of any party.2

First, the jurisdictional allegations regarding the plaintiff and defendant

Knupp are deficient because the notice of removal merely states that the plaintiff

is “a resident of the State of Texas” and that Knupp is “a resident of the State of

Arizona in Mohave [C]ounty.” Allegations of residency are insufficient as a matter

of law under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, as the Supreme Court has also

repeatedly made clear,

[i]t 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.

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905); cf.,

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. ...

Case 3:08-cv-08048-PGR Document 8 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

 Even if Hilltop Transport was in fact a corporation, the jurisdictional

allegation would still be deficient. Since a corporate party is a citizen of the state

in which it is 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 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970). 

- 3 -

[The] failure to specify Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of

diversity jurisdiction.")

Second, the jurisdictional allegation regarding defendant Hilltop Transport,

LLC is deficient because the notice of removal merely states that it is “an Arizona

corporation.”3

 This allegation is insufficient as a matter of law because a limited

liability company is not treated as a corporation for purposes of determining

whether diversity exists for purposes of § 1332. Johnson v. Columbia Properties

Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Notwithstanding LLCs'

corporate traits, ... every circuit that has addressed the question treats them like

partnerships for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. ... We therefore join our

sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of every state of

which its owners/members are citizens.") What is thus required in the notice of

removal are affirmative allegations specifically identifying each member of the

limited liability company and specifically setting forth each member’s citizenship.

In order to cure these pleading deficiencies, the Court will require the

defendants to file an amended notice of removal that affirmatively states the

citizenship of each party. The defendants are advised that their failure to timely

comply with this order shall result in the remand of this action without further

notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall file an amended notice of

Case 3:08-cv-08048-PGR Document 8 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

removal properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 12,

2008.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08048-PGR Document 8 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 4