Blair v. MIC General Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 25, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01778
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Anthony F Blair, et al., No. CV-21-01778-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 MIC General Insurance Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter arises under the Court’s review of Defendants’ Notice of Removal 16 (Doc. 1). Defendants purport to have removed this matter on the basis of the Court’s 17 diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For the following reasons, the Court will 18 remand this action to Maricopa County Superior Court. 19 “Upon removal, the district court must first determine whether the federal court has 20 subject matter jurisdiction.” Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Emp. Serv. Corp., 188 F.3d 1170, 21 1171 (9th Cir. 1999). Courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where 22 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 23 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Importantly, this means “each plaintiff must be of a different 24 citizenship from each defendant.” Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by & through Mills, 889 25 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) 26 The Complaint alleges Plaintiffs are Arizona residents, and it alleges Defendant 27 Drinkwater and his wife are also Arizona residents. (Doc. 1-3 at 5–6). Therefore, there is 28 no complete diversity, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this matter to 3 || Maricopa County Superior Court. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant MCI General Insurance 5 || Corporation’s Motion to Construe Notice of Removal as Timely (Doc. 4) is denied as || moot. 7 Dated this 25th day of October, 2021. 8 9 fe □□ 10 norable'Diang/. Hunfetewa 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-