Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc., et al v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, et al

Filing 15

ORDER that by 02/24/10, Dft Domino's Pizza LLC shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dft is cautioned that it will be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional allegations. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 02/10/10. (NOTE: See attached pdf for complete details) (ESL)

Download PDF
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 Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc.; Jackson) Hole Partners, LP; Grand Teton Partners,) ) LP, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Domino's Pizza, LLC; TISM, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV 10-0105-PHX-JAT ORDER "Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company); Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of a partnership). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that by February 24, 2010, Defendant Domino's Pizza LLC (as the party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092) shall file an amended notice of removal properly 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 alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is cautioned that it will be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional allegations. The Court will not issue additional show cause orders to assist Defendant in pleading jurisdiction.2 Therefore, if the amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded without the Court granting Defendant any further opportunity to amend. DATED this 10th day of February, 2010. The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court should not give a party advice because advice undermines the district judge's role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). -22 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?