Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00569/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00569-0/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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kahala Corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-07-0569-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Melissa Rothring, )

)

Defendant. ) )

In a complaint filed on March 15, 2007, the plaintiff 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

Case 2:07-cv-00569-PGR Document 5 Filed 03/20/07 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 plaintiff is also advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the

caption of the complaint violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

- 2 -

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

unless the defect be corrected by amendment.")

The jurisdictional allegation concerning the defendant is facially deficient

because it merely states that she is "a resident of Marietta, Georgia in Cobb

County." It is black letter law that allegations of residency do not suffice for

purposes of § 1332. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct.

616, 617 (1905) ("It 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."); accord, 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.") 

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

that cures the pleading deficiency noted in this Order shall result in the dismissal

of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 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

Case 2:07-cv-00569-PGR Document 5 Filed 03/20/07 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 -

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

April 6, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately serve a

copy of this Order upon the defendant if she has already been served with

process.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00569-PGR Document 5 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3