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

SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 

David A. Weatherwax (No. 006996) 

Craig A. Morgan (No. 023373) 

201 East Washington Street, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2327 

Telephone: (602) 240-3009 

Fax: (602) 240-6600 

E-mail: dweatherwax@shermanhoward.com 

cmorgan@shermanhoward.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Sherman & Howard, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

P. LEONARD BRUNO, an individual,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company; 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV-18-361-PHX-SPL 

DEFENDANT SHERMAN & HOWARD, 

LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

On February 1, 2018, P. Leonard Bruno (“Mr. Bruno”)1 filed a Petition (the 

“Complaint”) against Sherman & Howard L.L.C. (“Sherman & Howard”) and another law 

firm. (Doc. 1). The Court should dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. In 

addition, Sherman & Howard asks the Court to Order Mr. Bruno to pay the costs and 

attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this Motion.2

 

I. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THIS ACTION. 

The Complaint alleges that: 

“6. This Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the matter arises 

out of the constitution, and laws and treaties of the united states, specifically Title 

11 and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4. 

 1

 Although Mr. Bruno refers to himself here as “P. Leonard Bruno”, he is known generally 

as Paul Leonard Bruno. Mr. Bruno likely changed his name in this Complaint, because he 

wanted to avoid alerting this Court to his recent attempted removal of multiple cases to the 

District Court of Arizona, including two cases involving Sherman & Howard (both 

remanded), one of which concerns the very matters he now raises in this case as “P. 

Leonard Bruno”. See 2:17-cv-01428-DJH and 2:17-cv-04228-DJH. 

2

 This is the third motion that Sherman & Howard has been forced to file seeking to 

dismiss and/or remand from Federal Court an improperly filed, or removed, action, in 

three cases, over approximately as many months. Enough is enough! 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 5
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

7. Complete diversity also exists, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ....” (Id. at 

¶¶6, 7). 

As shown below, neither allegation is true, and the case should be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

A. THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE. 

It is well settled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) “does not create any 

independent federal-question jurisdiction” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury 

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 n.32 (1983).3

 In fact, that law specifically requires that 

petitions to compel arbitration, brought pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA. “allege an 

independent ground of jurisdiction.” Commercial Metals Co. v. Balfour, Guthrie, & Co., 

Ltd., 577 F.2d 264, 268 (5th Cir. 1978) (emphasis added).4

 

In our case, Mr. Bruno alleges only that subject matter jurisdiction exists “pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the matter arises out of the constitution, and laws and treaties of the 

united states, specifically Title 11 and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4.” (Doc. 1, 

¶6) (emphasis added). As stated above, the FAA, alone, does not create subject matter 

jurisdiction. Moreover, notwithstanding Mr. Bruno’s conclusory reference to “Title 11”

(also known as the United States Bankruptcy Code), he fails to, and cannot, allege a single 

fact that would support subject matter jurisdiction under Title 11. In fact, there is no 

bankruptcy proceeding. Indeed, as Mr. Bruno knows, on September 7, 2017, at Mr. Bruno’s 

request and over the objection of two creditors, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Mr. Bruno’s 

 3 See also Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15 n.9 (1984) (holding “while the 

Federal Arbitration Act creates federal substantive law requiring the parties to honor 

arbitration agreements, it does not create any independent federal-question jurisdiction”) 

(emphasis added); Am. Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New 

World Communications of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004, 1007 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding 

“the Federal Arbitration Act does not create any independent federal question 

jurisdiction.”); Patriot Envtl. Services, Inc. v. Cappello Capital Corp., CV162612ODWAGRX, 2016 WL 3545542, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3547948 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2016). 

4 See also Gen. Atomic Co. v. United Nuclear Corp., 655 F.2d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(“The provisions of 9 U.S.C. § 9 do not in themselves confer subject matter jurisdiction 

on a federal district court. Because no independent ground of jurisdiction existed in the 

case under review, the district court correctly dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.”). 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

personal Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and all related adversary proceedings. See, e.g.

Attachments 1-4. 

Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this case in its entirety, for this reason alone. 

B. AT A MINIMUM, THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS SHERMAN & HOWARD FROM 

THE COMPLAINT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. 

The law is clear--“an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are 

citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 

2006). Indeed, Mr. Bruno knows this law, because Judge Snow told him the law, in one of 

several State Court cases Mr. Bruno wrongfully removed to this District Court. See

Attachment 5, at n.1 (modified to eliminate irrelevant pages) (“If jurisdiction is based on 

diversity of citizenship, the report shall include a statement of the citizenship of every 

party ... The parties are reminded that ... limited liability companies are citizens of every 

state in which one or their partners or members resides See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c); Indus. 

Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990); Belleville Catering Co. v. 

Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003)). ...”) (emphasis 

added). 

As Mr. Bruno knows: (1) Sherman & Howard is a Delaware limited liability company 

with offices in several states, including Arizona; and (2) several of Sherman & Howard’s 

members (including, but not limited to, Messrs. Weatherwax and Morgan) reside in 

Arizona. As a result, and as Mr. Bruno knew before he filed this Complaint, there is no 

complete diversity of citizenship between himself (an admitted “resident of Maricopa 

County, Arizona, see Doc. 1 at ¶ 9), on the one hand, and Sherman & Howard, on the 

other hand. 

Accordingly, for this reason alone, the Court (1) does not have jurisdiction, and (2) 

should (i) dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, or (ii) at a minimum, dismiss Sherman & 

Howard from the case. 

II. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER MR. BRUNO TO PAY THE COSTS AND 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES INCURRED BY SHERMAN & HOWARD IN 

CONNECTION WITH THIS MOTION.

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 5
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

Not only does this action arise out of contract (see Doc. 1 at ¶63), but Mr. Bruno had 

no legal basis whatsoever to file this Complaint against Sherman & Howard--and he 

knows it. Moreover, and worse, Mr. Bruno makes this exact same claim for an FAA 

arbitration in the State Court case that is pending before Judge Whitten (Case No. 

CV2017-014106) that: (1) was filed on October 23, 2017, (2) wrongfully removed to the 

District Court by Mr. Bruno on November 8, 2017 (Case No. No. CV-17-04128-PHXDJH), and (3) remanded by Judge Humetewa on December 19, 2017 (see Case No. CV17-04128-PHX-DJH at Doc. 20). In this regard, and without limitation: 

(1) on December 26, 2017 January 4, 2018, after the case was remanded to the State 

Court, Mr. Bruno filed (i) a Motion To Compel Arbitration pursuant to the FAA, and (ii) a 

Supplement To [His] Amended Motion To Compel Arbitration. (See Attachment 6 and

Attachment 7, without Exhibits). Sherman & Howard objected to the Motion 

(Attachment 8, without Exhibits), and the Motion is pending before Judge Whitten; 

(2) on January 25, 2018, Mr. Bruno filed a “First Amended – Verified Answer – 

Verified Counterclaim – Verified Third Party Complaint” in the State Court (Attachment 

9, modified to eliminate irrelevant pages), in which he states, among other things, that: 

“1. Answering ¶1, Defendant admits Sherman & Howard, LLC (hereafter ‘S&H’) 

LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, authorized to do, and doing, 

business Arizona. (Id. at p. 2). 

* * * 

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 

... S&H failed to submit to arbitration, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 2.” (Id. at p. 4); and 

(3) during a status conference in the State Court proceeding on January 30, 2018, (i) 

Mr. Bruno advised the Court that he intended to file another Motion to Compel Arbitration 

under the FAA before Judge Humetewa in the District Court, to which (ii) the parties 

reminded the Court that Mr. Bruno already has a Motion to Compel Arbitration pending 

before Judge Whitten, and (iii) Judge Whitten advised Mr. Bruno that (a) he (Judge 

Whitten) routinely handles motions to compel arbitration under the FAA, and (b) such a 

Motion may not be well-received by Judge Humetewa, who already has remanded the case 

back to State Court. Incredibly, and in order to avoid the potential wrath of Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6 Filed 02/07/18 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Humetewa, Mr. Bruno filed this new Complaint, asking now a third Judge to compel 

arbitration under the FAA. 

Once again--enough is enough! Accordingly, in addition to dismissing this case, 

Sherman & Howard respectfully asks the Court to Order Mr. Bruno to pay Sherman & 

Howard’s (1) costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1919, and (2) reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 

Respectfully Submitted: February 7, 2018. 

 SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. 

By: /s/ David A. Weatherwax__ 

David A. Weatherwax 

Craig A. Morgan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 

ORIGINAL electronically filed on February 7, 2018, 

with a COPY transmitted through the ECF system to: 

P. Leonard Bruno a/k/a Paul L. Bruno 

3104 E. Camelback #539 

Phoenix, Arizona 85018 

/s/ Patty Vejar 

Case 2:18-cv-00361-SPL Document 6 Filed 02/07/18 Page 5 of 5