Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01591/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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 request for oral argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly discussed

the law and evidence and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Mahon v.

Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jennell D. Andrews, a single woman,

individually and as surviving mother of

decedent Demetrius T. Andrews, on

behalf of herself and all statutory

claimants, and as natural parent and next

of friend of D.D.A., a minor,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1591-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Claimant Kurtis Andrews, father of decedent Demetrius Andrews, has filed a motion

to remand this action to state court. Dkt. #6. Defendant Bridgestone Firestone North

American Tire, LLC (“Bridgestone”) has responded. Dkt. #9. Claimant has not filed a reply

brief, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court will deny the motion.1

I. Background.

Plaintiff Jennell Andrews, a citizen of Arizona, filed a wrongful death action in this

court. The complaint asserted various state claims against Bridgestone. Federal subject

matter jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship among the parties and an allegation

Case 2:07-cv-01591-DGC Document 12 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

that the matter in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. See CV-07-

770-PHX-SRB, Dkt. #1. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming as additional defendants T&S Auto

Group, Inc. (“T&S” Auto), American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Honda”), and Isuzu

Motors Limited and Isuzu Motors America, Inc. (“Isuzu”). See id., Dkt. #6. The addition

of T&S Auto, an Arizona corporation, defeated diversity jurisdiction. The case accordingly

was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See id., Dkt. ##26-27.

Plaintiff filed a new complaint against defendants in state court. When Plaintiff

voluntarily dismissed T&S Auto, Honda, and Isuzu, Bridgestone removed the case to this

Court based on diversity jurisdiction. See CV-07-1591-PHX-DGC, Dkt. #1 & Attachs.

II. Removal and Remand Standards. 

Any state-court civil action over which federal district courts would have original

jurisdiction may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In an action not

involving a federal question, removal is proper if none of the defendants is a citizen of the

state in which the action is brought and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). If at any time before final judgment it appears that

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

III. Analysis.

Claimant contends that diversity of citizenship does not exist because Bridgestone is

a citizen of Arizona. Claimant asserts that Bridgestone “is licensed to transact business

within Arizona and is incorporated in Arizona,” but provides no evidence to support the

assertion. Dkt. #6 at 3.

For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a limited liability company like Bridgestone

“is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia

Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Bridgestone’s notice of removal

alleges that it is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in

Tennessee. Dkt. #1 ¶ 4. Claimant asserts that the notice of removal is deficient because it

Case 2:07-cv-01591-DGC Document 12 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

- 3 -

contains no allegation regarding the citizenship of Bridgestone’s members. Dkt. #6. In

response to Claimant’s motion, Bridgestone has presented uncontroverted evidence showing

that its sole member is Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., a Nevada corporation with its

principle place of business in Tennessee. Dkt. #9-2 ¶ 3; see also Dkt. #2, 7 ¶ 4. Based on

this evidence, which the Court will construe as an amendment to Bridgestone’s notice of

removal, Bridgestone is a citizen of Nevada and Tennessee for purposes of diversity

jurisdiction. See Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899; see also Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837,

840 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that the district court did not err in construing the defendant’s

response brief as an amendment to its notice of removal).

Complete diversity exists in this case, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

See Dkt. ##1-2 at 3-18, 7 ¶¶ 3-4. The Court accordingly has subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED that Claimant Kurtis Andrews’ motion to remand (Dkt. #6) is

denied.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01591-DGC Document 12 Filed 10/22/07 Page 3 of 3