Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02362/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02362-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Windermere West Valley Partners, LLC;

Southern Devco, LLC; Walter L. Trace;

David N. Speers, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2362-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On December 11, 2009, the Court issued the following 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) (discussing the

citizenship of an LLC).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by December 30, 2009, Defendants (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

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

matter jurisdiction.1

Case 2:09-cv-02362-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/11/10 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

2

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

judge’s role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).

- 2 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will

be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional 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.

Doc. #26.

Eventually, Defendants filed an amended notice of removal and continued to allege

that subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity. Doc. #30. However, three

of the parties to this case are limited liability companies. As Johnson and Belleville Catering

both make clear, a limited liability company is a citizen of every state in which one of its

members is a citizen. 

In the amended notice of removal (Doc. #30), Defendants fail to allege the

membership of any of the limited liability companies. Defendants also fail to allege the

citizenship of all of the members. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to allege diversity

of citizenship. As a result,

IT IS ORDERED remanding this case to the state court of Iowa (specifically the

Iowa District Court for Linn County) for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02362-JAT Document 33 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 2