Meinerz v. Border Collie Rescue Incorporated et al

Filing 8

ORDER that by August 24, 2012, Defendant Chiulista Services, Inc. (as the party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Lewv. 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. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/10/12. (DMT)

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

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

17

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

18

Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28

19

U.S.C. § 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192; - - - U.S. - - - (2010)

20

(discussing the citizenship of corporations).
Accordingly,

21
22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

IT IS ORDERED that by August 24, 2012, Defendant Chiulista Services, Inc. (as the

2

party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Lew

3

v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986)) shall file a supplement to the notice of removal

4

properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack

5

of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

6

DATED this 10th day of August, 2012.

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