Cliffton Equities Incorporated v. Summerlin Asset Management III LLC

Filing 15

ORDER that the First Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than September 10, 2012. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 9/4/2012. (LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Cliffton Equities, Inc., Plaintiff, 11 12 13 vs. Summerlin Asset Management III, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-08131-PHX-PGR ORDER On August 21, 2012, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 13) that dismissed 17 the complaint because it failed to adequately allege the basis for diversity of 18 citizenship jurisdiction and required the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that 19 properly states a jurisdictional basis for this action. On August 30, 2012, the 20 plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that is still jurisdictionally defective. 21 The Court’s previous order required the plaintiff in part to “affirmatively 22 allege the state of citizenship of each member” of defendant Summerlin Asset 23 Management III, LLC. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendant’s 24 sole member is Summerlin Asset Management, LLC, which is alleged to have 25 three members: “Peter Pakes, James Stepanian and Adam Pakes, each of whom 26 is a resident of Lake Havasu City, Arizona.” This allegation of residency is 1 deficient as a matter of law to invoke diversity jurisdiction because it fails to allege 2 the individuals’ citizenship as required. See Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 3 141, 143, 25 S.Ct. 616, 617 (1905) ("It has long been settled that residence and 4 citizenship [are] wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and 5 the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the ... courts of the United 6 States; and that a mere averment of residence in a particular state is not an 7 averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose of jurisdiction."); accord, 8 Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Plaintiffs' 9 complaint ... state[s] that Plaintiffs were 'residents' of California. But the diversity 10 jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, speaks of citizenship, not of residency. ... 11 [The] failure to specify Plaintiffs' state of citizenship was fatal to [the] assertion of 12 diversity jurisdiction.") To cure this pleading deficiency, the plaintiff must 13 affirmatively allege the state of citizenship of the three individuals. 14 The plaintiff is advised that the Court will not permit a fourth attempt to 15 plead diversity jurisdiction and that a failure to timely or sufficiently comply with 16 this Order will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter 17 jurisdiction. Therefore, 18 IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint is dismissed for lack of 19 subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff shall file a second amended 20 complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than 21 September 10, 2012. 22 DATED this 4th day of September, 2012. 23 24 25 26 -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?