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)

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-