Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Construction Management Technology Incorporated et al

Filing 7

ORDER: By April 3, 2024, Plaintiff is ORDERED to either (1) amend its Complaint to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction or (2) show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk o f the Court is directed to dismiss this case in its entirety, without further order of the Court, if Plaintiff does not either amend its Complaint or respond to this order to show cause within the timeframe specified herein. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/27/2024. (KJ)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 Construction Management Incorporated, et al., 13 14 No. CV-24-00658-PHX-DLR ORDER Technology Defendants. 15 16 On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Complaint seeking declaratory judgment 17 against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint, however, fails to sufficiently allege that this 18 Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) 19 (holding that a federal court has an independent duty to ensure subject-matter jurisdiction 20 exists in cases before it); NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613–14 (9th Cir. 21 2016) (“The party seeking to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction always bears the 22 burden of both pleading and proving diversity jurisdiction.”) Plaintiff alleges that the Court 23 has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (the diversity jurisdiction 24 statute). (Doc. 1 ¶ 29.) 25 Section 1332 provides that diversity jurisdiction in a civil action exists where (1) the 26 citizenship of each plaintiff differs from the citizenship of each defendant, and (2) the 27 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Complaint here fails to 28 adequately plead diversity of citizenship. 1 The Complaint identifies the following: Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. 2 is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio (Doc. 1 ¶ 24); Defendant 3 McCain Construction, LLC (“McCain”) is an Arizona limited liability company with a 4 principal place of business in Arizona (Id. ¶ 25); and Defendant Construction Management 5 Technology, Inc. (“CMT”) is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in 6 Texas. (Id. ¶ 26) 7 A corporation is deemed a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its principal 8 place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, Plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio, as that is the 9 state of its incorporation and principal place of business. Likewise, CMT is a citizen of 10 Texas. However, McCain’s citizenship is not clear. For the purposes of diversity 11 jurisdiction, a limited liability corporation (“LLC”) is a “citizen of every state of which its 12 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 13 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege either who the owners/members 14 of McCain are or their respective citizenships. And without knowing McCain’s citizenship, 15 the Court cannot determine whether a diversity of citizenship exists. The Complaint’s 16 assertion of diversity jurisdiction is insufficiently supported by the allegations. 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED that by April 3, 2024, Plaintiff is ORDERED to either 19 (1) amend its Complaint to sufficiently allege subject-matter jurisdiction or (2) show cause 20 in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 21 The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss this case in its entirety, without further order 22 of the Court, if Plaintiff does not either amend its Complaint or respond to this order to 23 show cause within the timeframe specified herein. 24 Dated this 27th day of March, 2024. 25 26 27 28 Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge -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?