Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08004/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reina Rutt Gonzales Merlo, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Canamex Freight Systems, Inc., et

al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-8004-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

In their complaint filed on January 11, 2008, the plaintiffs allege that this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this personal injury action solely on the

basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction 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 complaint alleges that “[a]ll of the Plaintiffs are citizens and residents

of Honduras[,]” that “[d]efendant Canamex Freight Systems, Inc. is incorporated

under the laws of Canada and has its principal place of business in Canada[,]”

and that defendants Jaswant Randhawa and Harpeet Randhawa “are residents

of Canada.” No party is alleged to be a citizen of the United States.

Case 3:08-cv-08004-PGR Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 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

1

 The plaintiffs are advised that the capitalization of the parties’ names in

the caption of any document filed with the Court is a violation of LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

- 2 -

Since it is well established that diversity jurisdiction simply does not

encompass foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants, Nike, Inc. v. Comercial

Iberica de Exclusivas Departivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1994);

Faysound Ltd. v. United Coconut Chemicals, Inc., 878 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir.

1989); Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464

U.S. 1017 (1983), the Court will require the plaintiffs to show cause why the Court

should not sua sponte dismiss this action without leave to amend for lack of

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall show cause in writing no later than

January 25, 2008 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.1

DATED this 15th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-08004-PGR Document 7 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 2