Opinion ID: 726140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 6 Commonwealth removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court denied Jenkins' motion to remand and granted Commonwealth leave to amend its notice of removal, which Commonwealth did. On appeal, Jenkins challenges the district court's determination that it had diversity jurisdiction over this case. The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Valdez v. United States, 56 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir.1995). 7 Jenkins' challenges to diversity jurisdiction over this action are without merit. Whatever formal errors of pleading Commonwealth made in its notice of removal, it remedied these in its amended notice, in which it stated that Commonwealth is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, whose principal place of business was and is the state of Pennsylvania. Whatever formal defect existed by virtue of Commonwealth's statement in its notice of removal that Jenkins is a resident of Hawai'i rather than a citizen was similarly cured by the amendment, and by Jenkins' concession that he is a citizen of Hawai'i. The amended pleadings therefore establish that Jenkins and Commonwealth are citizens of different states, so diversity jurisdiction exists over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.