Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01620/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01620-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

Lincoln Sky Harbor, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Shumin Zhang and Susan Tang; Linghui

Nie and Xinhua Li; Western Store Supply,

LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1620-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, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332; Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.

2006).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by October 15, 2008, Defendants Western Stone Supply, LLC,

Shumin Zhang and Susan Tang (as the parties asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the

burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092

(9th Cir. 1990)) shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging federal subject

Case 2:08-cv-01620-JAT Document 17 Filed 10/03/08 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

27

28

1

 The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient

to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any

previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d

689, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004).

2

 The Court should not give a party advice because advice, “would undermine district

judges’ role as impartial decision makers.” See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter

jurisdiction.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will be given

one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdiction defects. The Court will not issue additional

sua sponte show cause orders to assist Defendants in pleading jurisdiction.2

 Therefore, if the

amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be

remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendants any further opportunities to

amend.

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01620-JAT Document 17 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2