United States District Court, D. Arizona
DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it
has subject-matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon
Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to Rule
12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000, exclusive of
interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy
meets this requirement when “all the persons on one
side of it are citizens of different states from all the
persons on the other side.” Strawbridge v.
Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).
party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden
of proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th
Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the evidence. McNatt v.
Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992);
see 13B Federal Practice § 3611 at 521 & n.
34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege
affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant
parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265
F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added).
LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members
are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties
Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus,
to properly establish diversity jurisdiction “with
respect to a limited liability company, the citizenship
of all of the members must be pled.” NewGen,
LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016)
Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, (“Cartessa”) alleges
that this Court has jurisdiction based solely on 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332 (diversity). (Doc. 1 ¶ 9.) Cartessa alleges
that Defendant Aesthetics Biomedical, Inc., “is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
4602 N. 16th Street, #300, Phoenix, AZ
85016.” (Id. ¶ 7.) This allegation
establishes that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and
Arizona. Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas
Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994) (A
corporation is “deemed a citizen of its place of
incorporation and the location of its principal place of
fails, however, to affirmatively allege its own citizenship.
Rather, Cartessa alleges that it “is a New York limited
liability company with its principal place of business at 175
Broadhollow Road, Melville NY 11747.” (Doc. 1 ¶
6.) The location of the principal place of business is
irrelevant to the legal test of citizenship of an LLC for
diversity purposes. Cartessa also alleges that “[n]one
of Cartessa's members resides [sic] in Delaware or
Arizona.” (Id.) This allegation is
insufficient because it merely alleges a negative; it does
not allege “affirmatively” the citizenship of all
of the members. Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857;
NewGen, 840 F.3d at 611. Moreover, to the extent
that Cartessa's members are natural individuals (as
opposed to corporations or other LLCs), allegations as to
their state of residence will not suffice. “It
has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are]
wholly different things within the meaning of the
Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the
jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the United States; and
that a mere averment of residence in a particular state is
not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose
of jurisdiction.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198
U.S. 141, 143 (1905). “To be a citizen of a state, a
natural person must first be a citizen of the United States.
The natural person's state citizenship is then determined
by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A
person's domicile is her permanent home, where
she resides with the intention to remain or to which she
intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59
(emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Cartessa must list its own members and affirmatively allege
the citizenship of each, using the proper legal standard for
each-it must include the place of domicile for members who
are natural individuals, the place of incorporation and
principal place of business for members that are
corporations, and, if any of Cartessa's members are LLCs,
the citizenship of each of the member LLC's members must
be alleged, again using the proper legal standards.
Court will allow Cartessa to amend its defective
complaint. See NewGen, 840 F.3d at 612
(“Courts may permit parties to amend defective
allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the
IT IS ORDERED that by January 17,
2020, Cartessa shall file a supplement to the
complaint properly alleging its citizenship, including
listing the citizenship of each of its members.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Cartessa fails to timely
file its supplement, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss
this case, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter
 This amended complaint pursuant to
court order will not affect Cartessa's right under Rule
15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if she
chooses to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San