United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 13) that Plaintiff has lodged pursuant to the
Court's January 22, 2019 Order (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has
failed to correct the deficiencies in the original Complaint
(Doc. 1) regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
plaintiff and defendants must be residents of different
states and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum or
value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d
1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[J]urisdiction founded on
[diversity grounds] requires that the parties be in complete
diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,
000.”). For the purpose of determining diversity of
citizenship, a limited liability company (“LLC”)
is a citizen of every state in which its owners/members are
citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,
437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, a plaintiff must
“allege the citizenship of all the members” of an
LLC to properly plead diversity jurisdiction. NewGen, LLC
v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016).
Here, the First Amended Complaint fails to allege the
citizenship of each owner/member of Defendant MP BHC, LLC.
Moreover, the First Amended Complaint fails to allege the
citizenship of the Doe Defendants. “Doe defendants [ ]
are not automatically disregarded for jurisdictional
purposes.” Goldberg v. CPC Int'l, Inc.,
495 F.Supp. 233, 236 (N.D. Cal. 1980). The Court finds that
the First Amended Complaint fails to establish diversity of
citizenship. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to
re-file a First Amended Complaint that corrects this
deficiency. As Plaintiff has alleged that certain Doe
Defendants have committed torts against him, Plaintiff's
revised First Amended Complaint shall allege the citizenship
of the Doe Defendants in addition to the citizenship of each
owner/member of Defendant MP BHC, LLC.
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides
that district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil
actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States.” A case “arises
under” federal law either where federal law creates the
cause of action or “where the vindication of a right
under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of
federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v.
Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983)). Liberally construed, the
First Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the Fair
Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
state a discrimination claim under the FHA, the plaintiff
must establish a prima facie case by alleging facts that: (i)
plaintiff's rights are protected under the FHA; and (ii)
as a result of the defendant's discriminatory conduct,
the plaintiff has suffered a distinct and palpable injury.
Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir.
1999). When, as here, the plaintiff alleges discrimination on
the basis of disability, he must suffer from a handicap as
defined in 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). See United States v.
Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th
Cir. 1997). The FHA defines a handicap as: “(1) a
physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one
or more of such person's major life activities, (2) a
record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as
having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h).
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint fails to adequately plead
that Plaintiff suffers from a handicap within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). See Drawsand v. F.F.
Properties, L.L.P., 866 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal.
2011) (“[Plaintiff's] FHA claim is deficiently
pled. As an initial matter, the Court cannot assess whether
[Plaintiff] has a handicap within the meaning of §
3602(h) because she does not provide any details regarding
her alleged disability. Instead, she makes the conclusory
assertion that she ‘is a disabled veteran receiving a
disability, which qualified her for her federally subsidized
assistance program Section 8.'”).
above jurisdictional defects may be cured, the Court will
grant Plaintiff leave to file a revised First Amended
Complaint. See Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 760
(9th Cir. 2007) (“Assuming a substantive or
jurisdictional defect in the pleadings, dismissal without
leave to amend is proper only if it is clear, upon de novo
review, that the complaint could not be saved by any
amendment.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiffs lodged
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) with leave to refile a
revised First Amended Complaint that complies with this Order
and corrects the deficiencies noted herein. Plaintiff shall
have until July 10, 2019 to re-file a
revised First Amended Complaint. If filed, Plaintiff shall
indicate on the pleading that it is a “First Amended
Complaint.” Failure to timely file a revised First
Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of this action
without further notice.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff files a revised
First Amended Complaint, it may not be served until the Court
has issued its screening ...