Danzik et al v. CWT Canada II Limited Partnership et al

Filing 18

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a supplement to the complaint by June 16, 2017 properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/9/17. (MAW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dennis M Danzik and RDX Technologies Corporation, 10 Plaintiffss, 11 12 13 14 15 No. CV-17-00969-PHX-JAT ORDER v. CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, Changing World Technologies Incorporated, Jean Noelting, Unknown Noelting, Bruce MacFarlane, Unknown MacFarlane, Brian Appel, and Unknown Appel, 16 Defendants. 17 18 “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every 19 case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 20 (7th Cir. 2003). 21 In this case, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1332. However, the complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine 23 whether there is jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Insurance Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116- 24 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding to the district court to conduct proceedings and consider 25 evidence as necessary to determine subject matter jurisdiction). 26 First, the complaint fails to allege the principal place of business of Plaintiff 27 corporation RDX Technologies.1 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) 28 1 The complaint only alleges that RDX is a Canadian corporation. 1 (discussing the citizenship of a corporation). Second, the complaint fails to allege the 2 names and citizenship of each partner of Defendant CWT Canada II Limited Partnership. 3 Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of 4 limited partnerships).2 Third, the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of all partners 5 in Defendant Changing World Technologies, LP.3 Fourth, no allegation of citizenship of 6 any kind is made for the following individual Defendants: 1) Jean Noelting; 2) Jane Doe 7 Noelting; 3) Bruce MacFarlane; 4) Jane Doe MacFarlane; 5) Brian Appel; and 6) Jane 8 Doe Appel. See generally Kanter, 265 F.3d 857-58. Fifth, the complaint makes no 9 showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. See 10 generally Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116-1118. Sixth, diversity jurisdiction will not exist if 11 both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are foreign, which appears to be true in this case. 12 See Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th 13 Cir. 1994). 14 Based on the foregoing, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a supplement to the complaint by June 16 16, 2017 properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case will be 17 dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 18 Dated this 9th day of June, 2017. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The complaint does state each partner of this Defendant is either incorporated or resides in Canada. However, that allegation does not include a principal place of business for corporations nor does it include citizenship, as opposed to residence, for each individual. See Hertz, 559 U.S. at 92-93; Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing that residence is not citizenship for purposes of diversity). Beyond these flaws, however, and consistent with Valdez, the Court must review the citizenship of each limited partner, and not a generic assertion. 3 The complaint states that this Defendant is a Delaware partnership. This allegation is irrelevant to determining citizenship for purposes of diversity. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-96 (holding that partnerships take on the citizenship of every general and limited partner). -2-

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?