Foret v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 81

ORDER that by November 21, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the joint proposed case management plan properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/3/2011. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Allison Foret,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
DJO, LLC; et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-1707-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every
16

case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

17
Cir. 2003). In this case, in their joint proposed case management plan (Doc. 67) the parties
18
agree that this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity. However, the parties fail to allege
19
sufficient facts to establish the citizenship of each party.
20
Specifically, the parties allege that DJO, LLC is a corporation; however, limited
21
liability companies are not corporations. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage,
22

L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, Plaintiff who is the party asserting jurisdiction

23
and therefore the party with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d
24

747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986), shall be required to supplement the jurisdictional statement as set

25
forth below.
26
27
28

1

IT IS ORDERED that by November 21, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a supplement to the

2

joint proposed case management plan properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction,

3

or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

4

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-