Meinerz v. Border Collie Rescue Incorporated et al

Filing 10

ORDER remanding this case to Maricopa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Remand Letter)(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Border Collie Rescue, Inc.; Chiulista)
)
Services, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Ryan Meinerz,

No. CV 12-1453-PHX-JAT
ORDER

16

On August 10, 2012, the Court issued the following order:

17

“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
corporations).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by August 24, 2012, Defendant Chiulista Services,
Inc. (as the party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of
pleading jurisdiction, see Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986)) shall
file a supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject
matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Doc. 8.

25

On August 24, 2012, the removing Defendant filed a supplement asserting the

26

principal place of business of one of the two corporate Defendants. Diversity jurisdiction

27

requires complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants. Caterpillar v. Lewis,

28

386 U.S. 523, 531 (1996).

1
2

Because the Notice of Removal, even after the Court permitted a supplement, still fails
to allege complete diversity,

3

IT IS ORDERED remanding this case to Maricopa County Superior Court.

4

DATED this 5th day of September, 2012.

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-