United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge
9, 2017, the Court issued the following 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 (7th Cir. 2003).
In this case, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on
diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, the
complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to
determine whether there is jurisdiction. See Valdez v.
Allstate Insurance Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116-1118 (9th
Cir. 2004) (remanding to the district court to conduct
proceedings and consider evidence as necessary to determine
subject matter jurisdiction).
First, the complaint fails to allege the principal place of
business of Plaintiff corporation RDX Technologies. [footnote
omitted] Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80,
92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation).
Second, the complaint fails to allege the names and
citizenship of each partner of Defendant CWT Canada II
Limited Partnership. Carden v. Arkoma Associates,
494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of
limited partnerships). [footnote omitted] Third, the
complaint fails to allege the citizenship of all partners in
Defendant Changing World Technologies, LP. [footnote omitted]
Fourth, no allegation of citizenship of any kind is made for
the following individual Defendants: 1) Jean Noelting; 2)
Jane Doe Noelting; 3) Bruce MacFarlane; 4) Jane Doe
MacFarlane; 5) Brian Appel; and 6) Jane Doe Appel. See
generally Kanter, 265 F.3d 857-58. Fifth, the complaint
makes no showing that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum. See generally Valdez, 372
F.3d at 1116-1118. Sixth, diversity jurisdiction will not
exist if both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are foreign,
which appears to be true in this case. See Nike, Inc. v.
Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20
F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994).
15, 2017, the Court issued the following Order:
On June 9, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to supplement
the complaint by June 16, 2017, to cure six defects in
jurisdiction identified by the Court. Today, Plaintiffs filed
a supplement addressing 5 of the 6 identified defects. IT IS
ORDERED that by the original deadline, Plaintiffs must file a
further supplement addressing the sixth defect or this case
will be dismissed, without prejudice. (See Doc. 18 at 2
(“Sixth, diversity jurisdiction will not exist if both
the Plaintiff and the Defendant are foreign, which appears to
be true in this case. See Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica
de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th
the second order, Plaintiffs filed a second supplement. Two
jurisdictional issues remain.
with respect to one Defendant, CWT Canada II Limited
Partnership, Plaintiffs have pleaded a citizenship for the
general partner, then state “Upon information and
belief, [the general partner] is the only partner in CWT
Canada II Limited Partnership.” (Doc. 23 at 2).
Initially, the Court finds it curious that a
“partnership” would be created with only one
“partner.” Additionally, the Court notes that
this is the only party whose citizenship has been pleaded
“on information and belief” rather than actual
Court finds this allegation is insufficient to establish
diversity jurisdiction. However, the Court notes that it must
permit jurisdictional allegations on information and belief
until the Defendant has been served. See Carolina Cas.
Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1087
(9th Cir. 2014). Thus, the Court will require a further
supplement regarding jurisdiction after the Defendant has
second remaining jurisdictional issue stems from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals holding in Nike. 20 F.3d at
990-91. Specifically, the Court held that if there are
foreign plaintiffs and foreign defendants, there can be no
diversity jurisdiction. Id. (citing Cheng v.
Boeing Co, 708 F.3d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.) cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1017 (1983)). Further, the Court of
Appeals held that a United States citizen plaintiff or
defendant (added to the foreign plaintiffs and foreign
defendants) would not be sufficient for diversity
jurisdiction. Id. (citing Faysound Ltd. v.
United Coconut Chem., Inc. 878 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir.
1989)). However, the Court then held that even though a
foreign plaintiff and a foreign defendant would not be
completely diverse, so long as a United State citizen
plaintiff and United State citizen defendant (who were
diverse from each other) were added to the case, it would
cure the lack of complete diversity between the foreign
plaintiffs and defendants such that the federal court would
have diversity jurisdiction. Id. (citing
Transure, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan, Inc., 766
F.2d 1297, 1298-99 (9th Cir. 1985).
this backdrop, this Court must consider whether, when the
Court has diverse United States plaintiffs and defendants,
but also foreign plaintiffs and foreign defendants, does the
Court disregard the foreign plaintiff's and foreign
defendant's actual citizenship? In other words, in
Transure, the foreign plaintiff was a citizen of
Great Britain and the foreign defendant ...