United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge
7, 2018, the Court issued the following Order:
This case was transferred to the undersigned approximately
two months after it was filed. At that time, the Court noted
that the civil cover sheet stated that this Court's
jurisdiction is based on a federal question. (Doc. 1-1).
However, upon closer review of the complaint, the Court
discovered that jurisdiction is claimed to exist based solely
on diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 at 3).
“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).
Here, the complaint fails to plead diversity jurisdiction.
First, Plaintiff, which is a Trust (see Doc. 1 at 2)
fails to properly plead the citizenship of a trust.
Compare Navarro Savings Assoc. v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458,
465-66 (1980) with Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra
Foods, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1012, 1016-17 (2016). Thus,
Plaintiff must clarify whether it is the type of trust
discussed in Navarro versus Americold and
then properly allege citizenship accordingly. Second,
Plaintiff fails to properly allege the citizenship of Roth
Capital Partners, LLC. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties
Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9 th Cir.
2006) (holding that a limited liability company takes on the
citizenship of each of its members).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists in this court. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction. To satisfy this show cause,
Plaintiff must file a supplement to the complaint by June 15,
2018 establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, or
this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael DiGiacomo
must amend the civil cover sheet to be consistent with the
15, 2018, Plaintiff responded and “clarified”
certain allegations. First, Plaintiff clarified that it is in
fact not a trust, but instead a corporation. (Doc. 46 at 2).
Plaintiff claims its citizenship is the British Virgin
Islands and Singapore. (Id.). Plaintiff further
claims it is diverse from Defendant SenesTech because
SenesTech is a citizen of Delaware and Arizona.
respect to Defendant Roth, Plaintiff admits that it does not
actually know whether there is diversity between the parties.
Instead, Plaintiff pleads on information and belief that Roth
is a citizen of only California. (Doc. 46 at 2-3).
case, Plaintiff argues that under Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.
v. Team Equip. Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.
2014), Plaintiff may allege jurisdiction without actually
knowing the jurisdictional facts. Plaintiff is correct as to
the holding of the case. However, that case does not change
the fact that this Court must assess whether it has
jurisdiction before it presides over this case.
goes on to state that it is waiting for Defendant Roth to
answer to determine whether Roth admits the jurisdictional
allegation. While Carolina suggests this
approach, Carolina does not seem to anticipate a
circumstance where motions to dismiss are filed before the
answer, as occurred in this case. It would be pointless for
this Court to rule on motions to dismiss for failure to state
a claim in a case over which it does not have jurisdiction.
Thus, the Court will resolve this jurisdictional inquiry
before it turns to the motions.
for this Court to have jurisdiction, this Court must confirm
that no member of Roth is foreign.
Complete diversity does not exist under § 1332(a)(2)
where the case is between “a single foreign plaintiff
... and numerous foreign defendants (in addition to U.S.
defendants) [.]” Craig v. Atl. Richfield Co.,19 F.3d 472, 476 (9th Cir.1994); see Cheng v. Boeing
Co.,708 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir.1983)
(“Diversity jurisdiction does not encompass foreign
plaintiffs suing foreign ...