United States District Court, D. Arizona
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 15, 2019, 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 fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction.
First, the civil cover sheet, which was signed by an attorney
whose signature is not legible, claims the basis of
jurisdiction is that the “U.S. Government” is the
Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). The Court sees no evidence that
this representation is true.
Second, the complaint itself states that the basis for
jurisdiction is diversity. (Doc. 1 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332)). However, the complaint fails to allege
sufficient facts to establish diversity jurisdiction. For
example, the complaint notes that both Plaintiffs are limited
partnerships. However, the complaint fails to allege the
citizenship of every general and every limited partner.
See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185,
195-96 (1990) (a limited partnership takes on the citizenship
of all general and all limited partners). Instead, the
complaint alleges, for example, that the general partner of
SPUS8 Dakota LP is a limited liability company; but the
complaint fails to allege the citizenship of all members of
the limited liability company. See Johnson v. Columbia
Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.
2006) (a limited liability company takes on the citizenship
of each of its members); see also Celestial Cmty. Dev.
Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 901 F.Supp.2d 566, 581
(E.D. Pa. 2012) (“To establish the citizenship of a
limited liability company (LLC), a party must plead the
citizenship of each partner or member of the LLC. See
Zambelli Fireworks Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592
F.3d 412, 419-420 (3d Cir. 2010). This must be ‘traced
through however many layers of partners or members there may
be' to determine the citizenship of the LLC. Id.
(internal quotation omitted)”). Accordingly, the
complaint fails to allege the citizenship of the general
Next, the complaint alleges that SPUS8 Dakota LP's
limited partner [footnote omitted] is a limited partnership;
but the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of the
general partner or the limited partner(s) of this limited
partnership. See Carden, 494 U.S. at 195-96.
Accordingly, the complaint fails to allege the citizenship of
the limited partner.
These same pleading deficiencies exist for Plaintiff SPUS8
Pinnacle LLC and Defendant KNR Contractors LLC. This
deficiency may also exist as to Defendant Oddonetto Granite
& Marble LLC because the complaint pleads the
“residen[cy] and domicile” of a member of the LLC
but does not specify whether that is the only member of the
LLC. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert, 265 F.3d 853,
857-858 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that being a resident of a
state does not establish citizenship).
Thus, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs have not pleaded
sufficient information for this Court to independently
examine and determine whether it has subject matter
IT IS ORDERED that by November 29, 2019,
Plaintiffs shall file a supplement to the complaint
adequately alleging the citizenship of all parties to this
case or this case will be dismissed, without prejudice, for
lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must
also, by this deadline, amend the civil cover sheet if it is
November 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs made
sufficient jurisdictional allegations as to all Defendants.
However, with respect to Plaintiffs, the sole addition to the
jurisdictional allegation is as follows:
3. Through multiple levels of ownership entities, the
ultimate parent of each relevant Plaintiff entity is CBRE
Group, Inc., which is a publicly traded corporation. CBRE
Group, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware, with its principal
place of business in California. CBRE Group, Inc. is not a
citizen of Texas or Arizona.
(Doc. 15 at 2).
additional paragraph is inadequate to permit the Court to
independently verify its jurisdiction. As indicated in the
November 15, 2019 Order, the party asserting jurisdiction
must identify every member or partner (and their citizenship)
for every entity that is not a corporation traced through
even multiple layers of entities. Because Plaintiffs did not
provide the Court will this information, Plaintiffs will be
given one last opportunity to supplement the amended
complaint and fully allege federal subject matter
jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs fail to allege all elements of
the citizenship of every entity, this case will be dismissed,
without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter
jurisdiction. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED ...