ImageFIRST Holdings LLC v. Banner Health

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03256
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 ImageFIRST Holdings LLC, No. CV-25-03256-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Banner Health, Banner Boswell Medical Center, Banner Del E Webb Medical Center, 13 Banner-University Medical Center Tucson, Banner-University Medical Center South, 14 Banner Estrella Medical Center, and Supply Chain Value Network LLC, 15 16 Defendants. 17 “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every 18 case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th 19 Cir. 2003). In this case, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1332. 21 To properly plead diversity jurisdiction, a complaint must list the citizenship of 22 every member of any party that is a limited liability company (LLC). NewGen, LLC v. 23 Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016); Johnson v. Columbia Properties 24 Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the complaint states, “The 25 members of the limited liability companies, ImageFIRST Holdings, LLC, Banner– 26 University Medical Center Tucson, Banner–University Medical Center South, and Supply 27 Chain Value Network, LLC, have complete diversity of citizenship.” (Doc. 2 at 3). This 28 is an inadequate jurisdictional allegation for the LLCs. 1 The complaint also fails to plead diversity jurisdiction or citizenship for three of the 2 four other Defendants. The complaint fails to allege a corporate structure or plead any 3 jurisdictional allegation for Defendants Banner Boswell Medical Center, Banner Del E. 4 Webb Medical Center or Banner Estrella Medical Center. This is an inadequate 5 jurisdictional allegation. 6 The complaint alleges Banner Health is an Arizona nonprofit corporation (Doc. 1 at 7 2) and has its principal place of business in Arizona (Doc. 1 at 3). This is the only party 8 for whom Plaintiff adequately pleaded citizenship. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 9 77, 80, 92-93 (2010). 10 Additionally, Plaintiff’s disclosure statement filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 Procedural 7.1(a)(2) is inadequate. (See Doc. 2). Rule 7.1(a)(2) requires in relevant part: 12 “In an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a 13 party… must…file a disclosure statement. The statement must name—and identify the 14 citizenship of—every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party…” 15 (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiff must list every member of ImageFIRST Holdings LLC 16 and each such member’s citizenship. 17 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 18 of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of 19 proving jurisdiction. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are so deficient, the Court is 20 concerned Plaintiff is not taking either of these basic legal requirements seriously. Counsel 21 are reminded of their duties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). 22 Based on the foregoing, 23 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a supplement to the complaint, within 10 24 days of this Order, fully and properly pleading jurisdiction or this case will be dismissed 25 without prejudice. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 10 days of this Order, Plaintiff must □□ amend its corporate disclosure statement to comply with Rule 7.1(a)(2). 3 Dated this 11th day of September, 2025. 4 5 ' ° = James A. CO 7 Senior United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-