FM Holding Company LLC v. Pekin Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00337
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 FM Holding Company LLC and First West No. CV-24-00337-PHX-JAT Properties Corporation, 10 ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 Pekin Insurance Company, 13 Defendant. 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). This case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 18 However, Defendant has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. The 19 notice of removal states, “Plaintiff FM Holding Company, L.L.C. (“FM”) is an Arizona 20 Limited Liability Company doing business in Arizona. [] Plaintiff First West Properties 21 Corporation (“First West”) is an Arizona Limited Liability Company. [] Defendant Pekin 22 is an insurance company incorporated in the State of Illinois, with its principal place of 23 business now located in Pekin, Illinois.” (Doc. 1 at 1-2). 24 With respect to Plaintiff FM Holding, Defendant fails to state each member of the 25 limited liability company and the citizenship of each member. See Johnson v. Columbia 26 Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006); NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, 27 LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016). With respect to Plaintiff First West Properties, 28 the caption states this entity is a corporation, but the notice of removal states that it is a limited liability company. Regardless, Defendant did not properly allege the citizenship of 2|| either a corporation! or a limited liability company for this Plaintiff. 3 Additionally, neither party properly completed their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 disclosure statement. Defendant skipped the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) completely. Compare (Doc. 3 with Doc. 6). Plaintiffs acknowledged || their obligations under Rule 7.1(a)(2), but failed to meet them. Specifically, the Rule says, 7\| “...The statement must name—and identify the citizenship of—every individual or entity 8 || whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor....” Plaintiff failed to list every member of the limited liability company and state each member’s citizenship. (Doc. 7). 10 || Plaintiff also failed to fully state the citizenship of First West Properties. (/d.). 11 To allow the Court to assess jurisdiction, 12 IT IS ORDERED that each party must file a new, complete Rule 7.1 disclosure 13 || statement (see Doc. 3) by March 6, 2024. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must file a supplement to the notice 15 || of removal by March 8, 2024, fully alleging Federal subject matter jurisdiction or this case 16 || will be remanded to state court. 17 Dated this 4th day of March, 2024. 18 19 i C 20 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ! See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010). _2-