7800 W Jewell LLC v. Truck Insurance Exchange
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 04/16/2018. ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 26, 2018, plaintiff 7800 W Jewell LLC shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00773-PAB
7800 W JEWELL LLC,
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Court takes up this matter sua sponte on the complaint [Docket No. 1] filed
by plaintiff 7800 W Jewell LLC. Plaintiff claims that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5.
In every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal court must satisfy
itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if doing so requires sua sponte action. Citizens
Concerned for Separation of Church & State v. City & Cty. of Denver , 628 F.2d 1289,
1297 (10th Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction ex ists, a court may not
proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d
1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of jurisdiction on
their own, regardless of parties’ apparent acquiescence. First, it is the Court’s duty to
do so. See Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[I]f the parties
fail to raise the question of the existence of jurisdiction, the federal court has the duty to
raise and resolve the matter.”), abrogated on other grounds by Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014). Second, “[s]ubject m atter
jurisdiction cannot be conferred or waived by consent, estoppel, or failure to challenge
jurisdiction early in the proceedings.” Id. Finally, delay in addressing the issue only
compounds the problem if it turns out that, despite much time and expense having been
dedicated to a case, a lack of jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed or remanded
regardless of the stage it has reached. See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co.,
No. 09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July 28, 2009).
It is well established that “[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the
burden of establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” Radil v. Sanborn W.
Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004). Plaintif f invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332
as the basis for this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 5. Section
1332(a)(1) states: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between  citizens of different States.” The facts as presently
averred, however, do not provide sufficient information regarding the citizenship of
The complaint states that plaintiff is a “Colorado Limited Liability Company with
. . . one member, Gary Garcia, a natural person residing in Lakewood, Jefferson
County, Colorado.” Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶¶ 2-3. However, domicile, not residency, is
determinative of citizenship. See Kramer v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 1997 WL 141175, at
*3 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 1997) (unpublished). The information provided by plaintiff is
insufficient because it does not allow the Court to independently assess the alleged
jurisdictional basis. See Pinkard Constr. Co., 2009 WL 2338116, at *3; Affordable
Cmty. of Mo. v. EF & A Capital Corp., 2008 WL 4966731, at *2-3 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19,
2008) (statement that none of the unidentified members of an LLC was a citizen of a
particular state was insufficient to establish diversity of citizenship).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April
26, 2018, plaintiff 7800 W Jewell LLC shall show cause why this case should not be
dismissed due to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DATED April 16, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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?