Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01159-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Lucas Burge; et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Freelife International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1159-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, Plaintiffs cite no statute in the complaint which they allege would

give this Court jurisdiction. In fact, in the “jurisdiction” section of their complaint, they cite

a state statute and a state rule of court, but no federal statute or federal rule.

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party asserting

jurisdiction must plead sufficient facts for this Court to assess its jurisdiction. Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115,

1116-17 (9th Cir. 2004).

Therefore,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01159-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/12/09 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

- 2 -

IT IS ORDERED that by July 2, 2009, Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint

properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without

prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01159-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 2