Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01031/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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 defendants are advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the captions

of the Notice of Removal and their Answer to Complaint violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charlotte M. Hobbs, )) Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-1031-PHX-PGR ) vs. )) ORDER and OPINION Wal-Mart Store Inc., et al., )) Defendants. ) ) 

The defendants removed this action on April 10, 2006 solely on the basis of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Having reviewed Defendants' Notice of

Removal 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

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

Case 2:06-cv-01031-PGR Document 6 Filed 04/18/06 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

27

28

- 2 -

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

determine the citizenship of any party.

The Notice of Removal inexplicably contains no allegation at all concerning

the plaintiff's citizenship, and the plaintiff's citizenship cannot be determined from

the allegations of her complaint inasmuch as it merely that she is "a resident of

Yuma County, Arizona[,]" and allegations of residency do not suffice for purposes

of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 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. ...

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

diversity jurisdiction.")

With regard to the named corporate defendants, the Notice of Removal

merely alleges that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is "a Delaware Corporation" and that

Tricam Industries Inc. is "a Minnesota Corporation", and that both are "foreign

corporations"; the plaintiff's complaint contains no allegations regarding the

citizenship of these defendants. 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).

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

Case 2:06-cv-01031-PGR Document 6 Filed 04/18/06 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

27

28

- 3 -

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

removal properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 1,

2006.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01031-PGR Document 6 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 3