Batres et al v. Homecomings Financial, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER that by July 30, 2010, the removing Defendant 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. Defendant is cautioned t hat it will be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdiction defects. The Court will not issue additional sua sponte show cause orders to assist Defendant in pleading jurisdiction. Therefore, if the amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendant any further opportunities to amend.. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/16/10. (DMT)

Batres et al v. Homecomings Financial, LLC et al

Doc. 10

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

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ) (1)Homecomings Financial LLC ) (2)Aurora Loan Services LLC (3)Mortgage Electronic Registrations) ) Systems, Inc. ) (4) Does. ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Juan Batres, et al.,

No. CV 10-1276-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; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010) (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). Accordingly, /// /// ///

Dockets.Justia.com

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

IT IS ORDERED that by July 30, 2010, the removing Defendant 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.1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is cautioned that it will be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdiction defects. The Court will not issue additional sua sponte 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 sua sponte granting Defendant any further opportunities to amend. DATED this 16th day of July, 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 giving advice would undermine a district judge's role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). -22

1