Christensen v. Galliway

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-08509
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Kent Christensen, et al., No. CV-23-08509-PCT-JJT

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Leann Renee Galliway, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 36, “Compl.”). Federal 16 courts are limited in the types of cases they can hear. The two most common exercises of 17 subject matter jurisdiction involve either a controversy between citizens of different states 18 (diversity jurisdiction) or a question of federal law (federal question jurisdiction). See 19 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Here, Plaintiffs assert diversity jurisdiction, stating that “the 20 amount in controversy, without interest and costs, exceeds the [statutory] sum or value.” 21 (Compl. ¶ 2.1.) When assessing the amount in controversy for the purposes of diversity 22 jurisdiction, the alleged damages must be taken from the face of the complaint. St. Paul 23 Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). But Plaintiffs’ Complaint 24 does not allege an amount of damages at all. Plaintiffs’ statement that the amount in 25 controversy exceeds the statutory minimum is nothing more than a legal conclusion 26 couched as a factual allegation, which the Court is not bound to accept as true. See Ashcroft 27 v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Therefore, the Court will order Plaintiffs to show cause 28 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs show cause in writing within seven 2|| days of the date of this Order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 3 || matter jurisdiction. 4 Dated this 30th day of May, 2024. CN

6 wef folee— United State#District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-