Turner et al v. The PRG Group

Filing 4

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)

FILED
Clerk, l:J.S District Court
D1stnct Of Montana
He'sna

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
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

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
vs.

The PRG Group, LLC,
Defendants.

Pending before the Court is a Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer to and
including January 2, 2017.

-1-

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

1

Doc. 1 at ~ 4.
-2-

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).
ORDERED:
1.

This case will be dismissed on December 13, 2016, unless Plaintiffs

file an amended pleading properly alleging jurisdiction on or before that date.
2.

The Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer is DENIED as MOOT.

DATED this

5ciay

of December, 2016.

nited States District Court

2

Doc. 3.

-3-