Joeseph Signorelli v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Joeseph Signorelli, No. CV-26-00358-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Twin City Fire Insurance Company,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(a)(2) every party in a case in which this 16 Court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity must file a disclosure statement. Here, Defendant 17 filed a disclosure statement using the wrong form. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff never filed any form. 18 The Clerk’s office advised the parties of this requirement and gave both parties 14 days to 19 file the required disclosure statement. (Doc. 5). Neither party complied by the February 20 4, 2026, deadline. 21 Additionally, the Court cannot determine jurisdiction by reading the deficient notice 22 of removal. See generally Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 23 F.3d 691, 693 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal 24 judge’s first duty in every case.”). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” and 25 “possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian 26 Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies 27 outside this limited jurisdiction” and the burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the party 28 asserting jurisdiction. Id. 1 Specifically, Defendant states, “Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company is a 2 foreign property and casualty insurer with its principal place of business in Hartford, 3 Connecticut. According to the Complaint Plaintiff is domiciled in Arizona.” (Doc. 1). 4 “Foreign” is not an affirmative jurisdictional allegation. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 5 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to 6 invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of 7 the relevant parties.”). Additionally, a “domicile” is not necessarily a “citizenship.” 8 Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding 9 alleging diversity jurisdiction based on residency rather than citizenship to be inadequate). 10 Further, Defendant fails to establish an amount in controversy. In the notice of 11 removal, Defendant says, “Upon information and belief, … the matter in controversy 12 exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.” (Doc. 1). 13 Jurisdictional allegations can be made on information and belief only when the facts cannot 14 be reasonably ascertained. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 741 F.3d at 1087. Defendant offers no 15 explanation as to why it cannot reasonably ascertain the amount in controversy. 16 Additionally, Defendant offers no explanation how it, in good faith, formed its 17 “information and belief” regarding the amount in controversy. See Padilla v. Veyo LLC, 18 No. CV-23-02380-PHX-JAT, 2024 WL 3851213, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2024) 19 (“‘Information and belief’ is not merely the lack of known contradictory facts. It must be 20 based on specific facts from which reasonable inferences can be drawn. Sandisk Corp. v. 21 LSI Corp., No. C 09-02737 WHA, 2009 WL 3047375, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2009)...”). 22 As a result, 23 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant must each file the required 24 disclosure statement (see Doc. 5) by February 20, 2026. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / l IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant must, by February 20, 2026, file a || supplement to the notice of removal fully alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction. 3 Dated this 13th day of February, 2026. 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-