Turner et al v. The PRG Group
ORDER re 3 Stipulation filed by The PRG Group is denied as moot and further orders Amended Pleading properly alleging jurisdiction due by 12/13/2016 or matter will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 12/5/2016. (DED)
Clerk, l:J.S District Court
D1stnct Of Montana
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
James F. Turner, Trustee of The James
Frederick Turner, Jr. Revocable Trust
and Barbara B. Turner, Trustee of the
Barbara Bird Turner Revocable Trust,
No. CV 16-54-BU-SEH
The PRG Group, LLC,
Pending before the Court is a Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer to and
including January 2, 2017.
Diversity jurisdiction is claimed. 1 However, the requisite diversity of
citizenship necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction is not pleaded.
Diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, if it exists, must be grounded in 28
U.S.C. § 1332. That statute provides in pertinent part:
(a) 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( 1) Citizens of different States;
28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(l).
It is fundamental that federal jurisdiction cannot be presumed. The diversity
statute requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all
defendants. 15 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE§
102.12, at 102-28 (3d ed. 2016). It is to be strictly construed. City ofIndianapolis
v. Chase Nat. Bank of City ofNew York, 314 U.S. 63 (1941). Plaintiffs, as the
party asserting jurisdiction, have the burden of proving such jurisdiction exists.
Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986).
"[T]he citizenship of an LLC for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction is the
citizenship of its members." Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th
Doc. 1 at ~ 4.
Cir.1998). Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege the citizenship of Defendant's members.
It is thus impossible for the Court to determine whether complete diversity exists.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and case law provide that a party, or the court on its
own initiative, may raise lack of subject-matter jurisdiction issues at any stage in
the litigation, even after the trial and judgment entry. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,
546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
This case will be dismissed on December 13, 2016, unless Plaintiffs
file an amended pleading properly alleging jurisdiction on or before that date.
The Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer is DENIED as MOOT.
of December, 2016.
nited States District Court
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?