Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00536/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00536-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nikolai M. Fedoseev and Gulzhan Fedoseeva,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Michael Alexandrovich and Marina N.

Alexandrovich, individually and as husband and

wife, 

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-536 TUC DCB

AMENDED

ORDER

The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants in state court. The Defendants removed the

action here on September 8, 2005, basing federal jurisdiction for the removal on the diversity

of citizenship between the parties. Defendants allege that they are residents of Tucson,

Arizona. Defendants allege that "Plaintiffs are illegal aliens not admitted to the United States

for permanent residence and foreign citizens." (Notice of Removal at ¶ 4.) 

Title 28 of the United States Code section 1332 provides the diversity requirements

for federal jurisdiction as follows:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs , and is between – 

 * * *

 (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;

 * * *

For the purposes of this section, . . ., an alien admitted to the United States

for permanent residence shall be deemed a citizen of the State in which such

alien is domiciled.

Case 4:05-cv-00536-DCB Document 15 Filed 12/02/05 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

Plaintiffs assert that they are not illegal aliens, but rather are "seeking political

asylum and are appropriately pursuing that status before the courts." (P's Objection to

Motion to Dismiss at 3 n. 4.) Plaintiffs do not challenge this Court's jurisdiction nor seek

remand of this action to state court.

Jurisdictional bars, however, cannot be waived by the parties and if necessary must

be addressed sua sponte. Skranak v. Castenada, 425 F.3d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing

Humboldt County v. United States, 684 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir.1982)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE FILING DATE OF THIS

ORDER the Plaintiffs shall file a memorandum regarding their citizenship status relevant for

purposes of this Court's exercise of its jurisdiction over this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a Response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Reply shall be filed.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00536-DCB Document 15 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2