Estrada v. Laxhmi Transport Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Diego Fernando Moir Estrada, No. CV-23-01492-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Laxhmi Transport Incorporated, and Rohtash Rohtash, 13 Defendants. 14

15 “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every 16 case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th 17 Cir. 2003). 18 Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case alleging jurisdiction based on diversity. See 19 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff states that he is a “resident” of Guatemala. (Doc. 1 at 1). 20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Laxhmi Transport Incorporated is a “California 21 corporation” which “regularly transacts business” in Arizona. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). Plaintiff 22 alleges that the second Defendant, Rohtash Rohtash, is a “resident” of California. (Doc. 1 23 at 2). In the section of the complaint on venue, Plaintiff states he is a citizen of Guatemala 24 and that Defendants are citizens of California. (Doc. 1 at 2). 25 In this case, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. First, a corporation 26 is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal 27 place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)). A corporation’s principal place of business is the 28 place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s || activities. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010). In this case, Plaintiff 2|| fails to specify the corporate defendant’s state of incorporation or its principal place of || business. Instead, the complaint states that the corporation was not formed in Arizona, nor 4|| is its principal place of business Arizona (Doc. 1 at 2), but since Plaintiff is not from || Arizona, that does not end the inquiry. 6 Second, for this Court to have diversity jurisdiction, there cannot be only a foreign 7\| plaintiff suing a foreign defendant. See Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas 8 || Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994) (one United States citizen plaintiff or 9|| defendant will not establish diversity if there is a foreign plaintiff and a foreign defendant). || Here, Plaintiff alleges he is not a citizen of the United States. Thus, for this Court to have 11 |} diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff must establish that all Defendants are United States citizens. 12 Thus, based on the foregoing, 13 IT IS ORDERED that by November 13, 2023, Plaintiff must file a supplement to the complaint fully alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be 15 || dismissed without prejudice. 16 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2023. 17 18 a 3 19 0 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-