Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01876/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01876-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rick Kalinowski, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Davol, Inc., a New Jersey corporation;

C.R. Bard., Inc., a New Jersey corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-01876-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 7). The Court now

rules on the motion.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on June 14, 2006. The

Plaintiff, Rick Kalinowski, filed a certificate of compulsory arbitration in the Superior Court

certifying that the amount in controversy did not exceed $50,000. Plaintiff is a resident of

the State of Arizona. Defendant Davol, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation. Davol’s principal

place of business is Rhode Island. Defendant C.R. Bard., Inc., is a New Jersey corporation.

C.R. Bard’s principal place of business is New Jersey.

 On July 31, 2006, the Defendants removed this case to the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Defendants believed the

amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, the jurisdictional prerequisite for diversity

Case 2:06-cv-01876-JAT Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 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

27

28

- 2 -

jurisdiction, because of the alleged $21,855 wage claim, request for treble damages under

A.R.S. § 23-355, request for attorney’s fees, and request for “other damages” alleged in the

Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants’ Motion to Remand states that despite the

multiple claims for damages, the Plaintiff does not intend to aggregate the claims, but instead

intends only to seek damages “up to the jurisdictional maximum,” of $50,000. 

The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff previously suggested in a prior demand letter,

and on the phone, that he did in fact intend to aggregate claims. However, the Defendants

agree that now that the Plaintiff has admitted that he is limiting his claims to $50,000 the

requirements of diversity jurisdiction have not been met. Therefore, the Defendants do not

oppose remand to Superior Court. 

Both parties request attorneys’ fees.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Federal jurisdiction over a civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 exists only when

there is complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the amount-incontroversy requirement has been met. Owen Equip. and Recreation Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.

365, 373, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2402 (1978); Inecon Agricorporation v. Tribal Farms, 656 F.2d 498

(9th Cir. 1981). In order to achieve “complete diversity,” no party plaintiff may be a citizen

of the same state as any of the defendants. Owen Equipment, 437 U.S. at 373, 98 S.Ct. at

2402; Inecon Agricorporation, 656 F.2d at 498. The jurisdictional amount-in-controversy

requirement for civil actions is $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

28 U.S.C. § 1447 controls the remand of removed matters for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Pursuant to the statute, if a district court determines at any time before final

judgment that it is without subject matter jurisdiction it “shall” remand the removed action

to the originating state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122

F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The parties agree that the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed $50,000.

Additionally, the Court also points out that diversity of citizenship is not apparent on the face

Case 2:06-cv-01876-JAT Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 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

27

28

- 3 -

of the Complaint or the Notice of Removal. The Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of the

state of Arizona, but does not allege a state of citizenship. The Defendants’ Notice of

Removal suffers from the same defect. 

Diversity jurisdiction is based on citizenship not residency. To be a citizen of a

particular state, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled

within that state. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828, 109 S.Ct.

2218, 2221 (1989). A person’s domicile is his or her permanent home, where he or she

resides with the intention to remain or to return. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir.

1986). A person residing in a given state is not necessarily domiciled there, and also not

necessarily a citizen of that state. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

Cir. 2001). Thus, “residency” and “citizenship” are wholly different things under the law.

A mere averment of residency in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that

state for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., id. at 857-58. A complaint that fails

to specify a party’s state of citizenship fails to adequately allege diversity of citizenship. Id.

The parties in this case have failed to allege the Plaintiff’s state of citizenship. Allegations

of residency but not citizenship are insufficient to determine the existence of diversity

jurisdiction. Id.

The Court finds that diversity jurisdiction is not present on the face of the Complaint

and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Motion to Remand is

granted. The Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is denied. The Defendants’ request for

attorneys’ fees is denied. Each side will bear its own fees and costs. 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01876-JAT Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 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

27

28

- 4 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING THE Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (doc. 7). This case

is remanded to the Maricopa County Superior Court for further proceedings. 

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01876-JAT Document 13 Filed 09/12/06 Page 4 of 4