Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01431/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01431-0/pdf.json

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

General Electric Capital Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Pizza Project, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01431-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

In a complaint filed on July 16, 2013, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has

diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over this action 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 Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; see also,

Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926) ("The established

rule is that a plaintiff, 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 the case, unless the defect be corrected by

Case 2:13-cv-01431-PGR Document 6 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 4
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

 Since only a corporation or an individual may be a citizen for purposes

of § 1332 jurisdiction, the amended complaint must set forth any sub-layers of

partners or members Pizza Project may have.

- 2 -

amendment.")

The existence of diversity jurisdiction is not evident from the face of the

complaint inasmuch as the complaint fails to properly allege the citizenship of either

defendant. First, Pizza Project, LLC is merely alleged to be a Nevada limited liability

company with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City, Utah. This

jurisdictional allegation is insufficient as a matter of law inasmuch as the complaint

improperly attempts to allege the citizenship of Pizza Project as if it is a corporation

notwithstanding that it has been clearly established for years that a limited liability

company cannot be treated as a corporation for purposes of alleging citizenship

under § 1332. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,

899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Notwithstanding LLCs' corporate traits, ... every circuit that has

addressed the question treats them like partnerships for the purposes of diversity

jurisdiction. ... We therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership,

an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.") Since

the complaint fails to set forth the citizenship of any member of Pizza Project, the

Court will require the plaintiff to specifically identity in its amended complaint each

LLC member by name, specifically allege the type of business entity that any nonindividual member is, and affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each

member.1

Second, James Taggart is merely alleged to reside in Draper, Utah. This

allegation is facially deficient because it is black letter law that an allegation of

residency does not suffice for purposes of § 1332. See Steigleder v. McQuesten,

Case 2:13-cv-01431-PGR Document 6 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 4
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

 The plaintiff is advised that the complete capitalization of a party’s

name in the caption of any document filed with the Court violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3)

unless that party’s name is completely capitalized in its normal use. The caption

of the amended complaint must comply with the local rule. 

- 3 -

198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905) ("It has long been settled that residence

and citizenship [are] wholly 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) (Plaintiffs' complaint ...

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 [the] assertion of diversity

jurisdiction.") 

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely or sufficiently comply with this

Order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint

properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than August 5, 2013.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately provide a

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:13-cv-01431-PGR Document 6 Filed 07/24/13 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

copy of this Order to any defendant already served with process.

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01431-PGR Document 6 Filed 07/24/13 Page 4 of 4