McCleary et al v. Singh et al
Filing
14
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order along with the amended complaint so Defendants will understand the reason for the amendment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 5/8/24. (SLQ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Janice Louise McCleary, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
v.
12
Narinder B Singh, et al.,
13
No. CV-24-08056-PCT-DWL
ORDER
Defendants.
14
15
The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter
16
jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to
17
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any
18
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
19
Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between
20
the plaintiffs and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive
21
of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement when “all
22
the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other
23
side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).
24
The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of
25
proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the
26
evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal
27
Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke
28
diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the
1
relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
Plaintiffs bring this action asserting diversity as the sole basis of the Court’s subject-
3
matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs attempted to allege the citizenship of the
4
parties by alleging that each plaintiff is a “resident” of Missouri and that each defendant
5
who is a natural person is a “resident” of California. (Id. ¶¶ 1-3, 6-8.) As to natural persons,
6
an allegation about an individual’s residence does not establish citizenship for purposes of
7
establishing diversity jurisdiction.
8
and citizenship [are] wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the
9
laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the United States; and that
10
a mere averment of residence in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that
11
state for the purpose of jurisdiction.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905).
12
“To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. The
13
natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state
14
of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the
15
intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59
16
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
“It has long been settled that residence
17
“[F]ailure to specify [a party’s] state citizenship” is a “serious pleading defect” that
18
is “fatal” to an “assertion of diversity jurisdiction.” Id. at 857-58. Plaintiffs must amend
19
the Complaint to allege the citizenship of the individual natural persons who are parties to
20
this lawsuit.1 NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts
21
may permit parties to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the
22
proceedings.”). While Plaintiffs are expected to know their own citizenship, the citizenship
23
of the defendants who are natural persons “may be based solely on information and belief.”
24
Ehrman v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019).
25
Accordingly,
26
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint properly
27
This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiffs’ right
under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if they choose to do so. See,
e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015).
1
28
-2-
1
stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs shall
2
serve a copy of this order along with the amended complaint so Defendants will understand
3
the reason for the amendment.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended
5
complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of
6
subject-matter jurisdiction.
7
Dated this 8th day of May, 2024.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?