Document text
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
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
FM Holding Company LLC and First West
Properties Corporation ,
Plaintiffs ,
v.
Pekin Insurance Company ,
Defendant . No. CV-24-00337 -PHX -JAT
ORDER
“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every
case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C. , 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7 th
Cir. 2003). This case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdict ion.
However, Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. The
notice of removal states, “ Plaintiff FM Holding Company, L.L.C. (“FM”) is an Arizona
Limited Liability Company doing business in Arizona. [] Plaintiff First West Properties
Corporation (“First West”) is an Arizona Limited Liability Company. [] Defendant Pekin
is an insurance company incorporated in the State of Illinois, with its principal place of
business now located in Pekin, Illinois. ” (Doc. 1 at 1 -2).
With respect to Plaintiff FM Holding, Defendant fails to state each member of the
limited liability company and the citizenship of each member. See Johnson v. Columbia
Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 ( 9th Cir. 2006) ; NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig,
LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016) . With respect to Plaintiff First West Properties,
the caption states this entity is a corporation, but the notice of removal states that it is a Case 2:24-cv-00337-JAT Document 12 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -
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
27
28
limited liability company. Regardless, Defendant did not properly alle ge the citizenship of
either a corporation1 or a limited liability company for this Plaintiff.
Additionally, neither party properly completed their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7.1 disclosure statement. Defendant skipped the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 7.1(a)(2) completely. Compare (Doc. 3 with Doc. 6). Plaintiffs acknowledged
their obligations under Rule 7.1(a)(2) , but failed to meet them. Specifically, the Rule says,
“…The statement must name —and identify the citizenship of —every individual or entity
whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor ….” Plaintiff failed to list every
member of the limited liability company and state each member’s citizenship. (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff also failed to fully state the citizen ship of First West Properties. ( Id.).
To allow the Court to assess jurisdiction,
IT IS ORDERED that each party must file a new, complete Rule 7.1 disclosure
statement ( see Doc. 3) by March 6, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must file a supplement to the notice
of removal by March 8, 2024 , fully alleging Federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case
will be remanded to state court.
Dated this 4th day of March, 2024.
1 See Hertz Corp. v. Friend , 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92 -93 (2010). Case 2:24-cv-00337-JAT Document 12 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 2