Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 21, 2013

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff,
v.
Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant.

ORDER

PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.

In a complaint filed on July 25, 2013, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[1] Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the jurisdictional allegations therein are insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The Court will therefore require the plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

Since it is to be presumed that a cause of action lies outside of this Court's limited subject matter jurisdiction unless the contrary is established by the party asserting jurisdiction, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1677 (1994), the Supreme Court has long since, and repeatedly, made clear that

[t]he established rule is that a plaintiff, suing in federal court, must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected by amendment.

Smith v. McCullough , 270 U.S. 456, 459, 46 S.Ct. 338, 339 (1926). The plaintiff has not met its jurisdictional pleading burden because the complaint fails to affirmatively set forth the facts necessary for the Court to determine the citizenship of either party.

The jurisdictional allegations concerning the citizenship of the parties are facially deficient because they merely state that the plaintiff is "a Wisconsin corporation doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona" and that the defendant is "a Delaware corporation licensed and doing business in Maricopa County and doing business in Maricopa County, State of Arizona." Since a corporate party is a citizen of the state by which it was incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), diversity of citizenship jurisdiction is not properly set forth in a complaint unless all of this required information is affirmatively alleged.

The plaintiff is advised that its failure to timely file an amended complaint that cures these pleading deficiencies by affirmatively setting forth each party's state of incorporation and state of its principal place of business will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than August 31, 2013.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.