Danzik et al v. CWT Canada II Limited Partnership et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Dennis M Danzik and RDX Technologies
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,
“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 complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332. However, the complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to determine
whether there is jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Insurance Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-
1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding to the district court to conduct proceedings and consider
evidence as necessary to determine subject matter jurisdiction).
First, the complaint fails to allege the principal place of business of Plaintiff
corporation RDX Technologies.1 Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010)
The complaint only alleges that RDX is a Canadian corporation.
(discussing the citizenship of a corporation). Second, the complaint fails to allege the
names and citizenship of each partner of Defendant CWT Canada II Limited Partnership.
Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of
limited partnerships).2 Third, the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of all partners
in Defendant Changing World Technologies, LP.3 Fourth, no allegation of citizenship of
any kind is made for the following individual Defendants: 1) Jean Noelting; 2) Jane Doe
Noelting; 3) Bruce MacFarlane; 4) Jane Doe MacFarlane; 5) Brian Appel; and 6) Jane
Doe Appel. See generally Kanter, 265 F.3d 857-58. Fifth, the complaint makes no
showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
generally Valdez, 372 F.3d at 1116-1118. Sixth, diversity jurisdiction will not exist if
both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are foreign, which appears to be true in this case.
See Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th
Based on the foregoing,
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.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2017.
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.
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
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?