Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08112/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Owners Insurance Company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Jerica Sherer, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8112-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

In a complaint filed on October 29, 2007, 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 amendment.")

Case 3:07-cv-08112-PGR Document 3 Filed 10/30/07 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

1

 The plaintiff is also advised that the capitalization of the parties' names in the

caption of the complaint violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

- 2 -

The jurisdictional allegation concerning defendants Jerica Sherer and Irma

Speirs is facially deficient because it merely states that they are "residents of

Yavapai County, Arizona." It is black letter law that allegations of residency do

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 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 complaint is also facially deficient because there are no jurisdictional

allegations regarding defendants John Doe Sherer, John Doe Speirs, or VIP

Communications.

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint

that cures the pleading deficiencies noted in this Order shall result in the

dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended

Case 3:07-cv-08112-PGR Document 3 Filed 10/30/07 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 -

complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than

November 9, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall immediately serve a

copy of this Order upon any defendant who has already been served with

process.

DATED this 30th day of October, 2007.

Case 3:07-cv-08112-PGR Document 3 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 3