Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01843/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01843-0/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

1

 The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient

to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Automotive Holdings LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phoenix Corners Portfolio, LLC, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1843-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). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332; Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

2006) (discussing citizenship of limited liability companies).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by October 23, 2009, Defendant (as the party asserting

jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics

v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990)) shall file an amended notice of removal

properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack

of federal subject matter jurisdiction.1

Case 2:09-cv-01843-JAT Document 14 Filed 10/02/09 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

previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d

689, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

2

 The Court should not give a party advice because advice undermines the district

judge’s role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is cautioned that it will be given one

opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdiction defects. The Court will not issue additional sua

sponte show cause orders to assist Defendant in pleading jurisdiction.2

 Therefore, if the

amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be

remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendant any further opportunities to

amend.

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01843-JAT Document 14 Filed 10/02/09 Page 2 of 2