Clark v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Filing 46

ORDER re Defendant is granted 10 days to establish whether the parties in this case satisfy 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff is granted 5 days to file a response. No reply is required. See order re specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/26/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Although the Class Action Fairness Act creates subject matter jurisdiction when "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant[,]" 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), the only parties mentioned in the notice of removal and amended complaint are Jamie Clark and Metropolitan Life
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** ) JAMIE CLARK, on Behalf of Herself and all ) Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

3:08-CV-00158-LRH-VPC ORDER

Upon review of the Notice of Removal (#1) and the First Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand (#14), this court is uncertain whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Defendant's notice of removal states that "Plaintiff is a citizen of Nevada and MetLife is a citizen of New York." (Notice of Removal (#1) ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that "Defendant Met Life has its principal place of business in New York." (First Am. Compl. (#14) ¶ 4.) These allegations are insufficient because they omit any mention of Met Life's state of incorporation.1 See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Ins. Co., 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1970)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(holding that allegations were insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction when they failed to set forth a corporation's state of incorporation). As the removing party, Defendant has the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel. Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921). The court will therefore order proof on the issue of whether the citizenship of any member of Plaintiff's purported class is different from Defendant's citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2)(A). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant is granted 10 days to establish whether the parties in this case satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff is granted 5 days to file a response. No reply is required. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 26th day of January 2009.

__________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Insurance Company.

2