Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02463/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02463-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

East Valley Professional Center

Association,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Hartford Casualty Insurance

Company, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-02463-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

The defendants removed this action on November 15, 2012 solely on the

basis of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having

reviewed the Notice of Removal to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists in

this Court, the Court finds that the Notice of Removal is facially deficient because it

fails to properly allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction. 

As the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear,

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff [or removing defendant], 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 defect called to its attention or on

discovering the same, must dismiss [or remand] the case, unless the

defect be corrected by amendment.

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926); accord, Rilling

Case 2:12-cv-02463-PGR Document 10 Filed 11/26/12 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

- 2 -

v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 909 F.2d 399, 400 (9th Cir. 1990). The

defendants have not met their jurisdictional pleading burden because the Notice of

Removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine

the citizenship of any of the parties.

First, the allegation regarding the plaintiff’s citizenship is facially deficient

because Notice of Removal alleges that “[a]ccording to the Complaint Plaintiff is

domiciled in Maricopa County, Arizona[,]” but the complaint merely alleges that the

plaintiff “is a domestic corporation doing business in Maricopa County, Arizona.” In

order to properly allege the citizenship of the plaintiff, the defendants must

affirmatively set forth both the state by which the plaintiff was incorporated and the

state in which it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Fifty

Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.

1970) (Court noted that "an allegation that a corporation is a citizen of a certain state

(without more) is not an allegation of fact, but a mere conclusion of law" that is

inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction.)

Second, the allegation regarding defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance

Company’s citizenship is facially deficient because the Notice of Removal only

alleges that it “is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford,

Connecticut.” What is missing is an affirmative allegation setting forth the state by

which it was incorporated.

Third, the allegation regarding defendant Jeremy John’s citizenship is facially

deficient because it merely states that he “is an individual residing in Chandler,

Arizona.” It is black letter law that an allegation of residency does 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

Case 2:12-cv-02463-PGR Document 10 Filed 11/26/12 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 -

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) (“Pfizer’s notice of removal ... 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 Defendants’ assertion of diversity jurisdiction.") 

Furthermore, given the defendants’ attempt to allege that defendant John is

a citizen of Arizona, the Notice of Removal is procedurally deficient because it fails

to explain therein why removal is proper in light of the non-forum defendant rule of

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

In order to cure the jurisdictional pleading deficiencies noted in this Order, the

Court will require the defendants to file an amended notice of removal that properly

states the citizenship of each party. The defendants are advised that their failure to

timely comply with this Order will result in the remand of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall file an amended notice of removal

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than December 7, 2012.

DATED this 26th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-02463-PGR Document 10 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 3