Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02397/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dror Darel
Defendant
Orly Darel
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Orly Darel, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-06-2397-PHX-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Dror Darel, )

)

Defendant. ) )

The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, seeks in this action to domesticate a

judgment for child and spousal support issued by a Canadian court; the complaint

alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action solely

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 diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The Court will

therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the pleading

deficiencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

Since it is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside of this Court's

limited subject matter jurisdiction unless the contrary is established by the party

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 11 Filed 10/25/06 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 -

asserting jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.

375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court has long since, and

repeatedly, made clear that

[t]he 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.

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

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

The jurisdictional allegation regarding the defendant's citizenship is facially

inadequate because it merely states that the defendant is "a resident of the

County of Maricopa, State of Arizona." As the Supreme Court has also made

clear,

[i]t 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

[diversity of citizenship] jurisdiction.

Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905); 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.") 

Given the nature of this action, the Court will require the plaintiff to

affirmatively set forth the following information in the amended complaint so that

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 11 Filed 10/25/06 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

1

 Since the plaintiff is alleging that the judgment she seeks to domesticate was issued

by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, the Court will also

require the plaintiff to correct or clarify in the amended complaint the allegations in the

complaint, i.e., paragraphs 13 and 15, which refer to the Superior Court of Ontario and the

Province of Ontario.

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

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

- 3 -

the Court can determine whether it has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction: (1) the

subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 upon which the plaintiff is basing subject matter

jurisdiction, (2) the country or countries of which the defendant is a citizen; (3) if

the defendant is not a United States citizen, his immigration status in the United

States, and (4) the state within the United States of which the defendant is a

citizen.1

The plaintiff is advised that her failure to timely comply with this order shall

result in the dismissal of this action without further notice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

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

jurisdiction and that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly stating a

jurisdictional basis for this action in conformity with this Order no later than

November 13, 2006.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02397-PGR Document 11 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 3