Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08179/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PFFJ, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Cypress Benefit Administrators, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8179--PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

In a complaint filed on September 17, 2010, plaintiff PFFJ, LLC alleges that

the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the

jurisdictional allegations therein are insufficient as a matter of law to establish the

existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the

plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this

action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also, Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459,

46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926) ("The established rule is that a plaintiff, 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 called to its attention or on discovering the same, must

Case 3:10-cv-08179-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/22/10 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

1

 The Court notes that the civil cover sheet filed by the plaintiff adds to the

confusion over the type of business entity the plaintiff is by listing the plaintiff’s

name as “PFFJ, Inc.”

- 2 -

dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The Court cannot determine from the face of the complaint the citizenship

of either the plaintiff, which the complaint contradictorily states is PFFJ, LLC while

alleging that it “is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Delaware” with its principal place of business in Snowflake, Arizona1

, or of

defendant Cypress Benefit Administrators, LLC, which the complaint merely

alleges is “organized under the laws of Wisconsin and with its principal place of

business in Appleton, Wisconsin.” If these two parties are “LLCs” then the

jurisdictional allegations as to them are deficient as a matter of law because a

limited liability company is not treated as a corporation for purposes of diversity

jurisdiction since its citizenship is determined solely by the citizenship of each of

its members. See 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.") As to each party that is a limited liability company, the amended

complaint must affirmatively identify each member of that party and state the

citizenship of each member.

The Court also cannot determine the citizenship of defendant Companion

Life Insurance Company because the complaint, while alleging that this

defendant is “organized under the laws of South Carolina, ... with its principal

Case 3:10-cv-08179-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/22/10 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 -

place of business in Columbia, South Carolina[,]” nowhere alleges what type of

business entity it is, which is a crucial fact for purposes of determining if diversity

jurisdiction has been properly alleged. In its amended complaint the plaintiff shall

affirmatively state what type of business entity this defendant is and allege its

citizenship accordingly.

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint

that cures the pleading deficiencies noted in this Order shall result in the

dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

September 30, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately serve a

copy of this Order upon any defendant who has already been served with

process.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08179-PGR Document 7 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 3