Brentwood Scottsdale LLC v. Smith

Filing 10

ORDER that the defendant shall file an amended notice of removal in compliance with this Order no later than December 31, 2012. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/19/12. (DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Brentwood Scottsdale, LLC, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 vs. David James Smith, Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-02589-PHX-PGR ORDER 15 16 The defendant removed this action on December 5, 2012 solely on the basis 17 of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having reviewed 18 the Notice of Removal to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists in this Court, 19 the Court finds that the defendant has not met his jurisdictional pleading burden 20 because the Notice of Removal fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for 21 the Court to determine the citizenship of the plaintiff. 22 jurisdictional deficiency, the Court will require the defendant to file an amended 23 notice of removal that properly and affirmatively alleges the citizenship of all named 24 parties to this action.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. The defendant is advised that his In order to cure this 25 26 1 The parties are advised that LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) forbids the complete capitalization of a party’s name in the caption of any document filed with the Court 1 failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the remand of this action for lack 2 of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 The Notice of Removal is facially deficient because the defendant’s assertion 4 that the plaintiff is a citizen of Arizona is based only on his allegation that the plaintiff 5 is “an Arizona limited liability company authorized to do business in Maricopa 6 County, Arizona.” This allegation is insufficient as a matter of law because the 7 citizenship of a limited liability company for purposes of § 1332 is the citizenship of 8 each of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 9 899 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Notwithstanding LLCs' corporate traits, ... every circuit that has 10 addressed the question treats them like partnerships for the purposes of diversity 11 jurisdiction. ... We therefore join our sister circuits and hold that, like a partnership, 12 an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.") Since 13 nothing is alleged in the Notice of Removal concerning the citizenship of the 14 plaintiff’s members, the Court will require the defendant to specifically identity each 15 member of the plaintiff by name, specifically allege the type of business entity that 16 any non-individual member is, and affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of each 17 member.2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant shall file an amended 18 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 23 24 25 26 unless that party’s name is normally completely capitalized. 2 Since only a corporation or an individual may be a citizen for purposes of § 1332 jurisdiction, the amended notice of removal must set forth any sublayers of partners or members that the plaintiff may have. -2- 1 2 notice of removal in compliance with this Order no later than December 31, 2012. DATED this 19th day of December, 2012. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -3-

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?