Juarez v. Harding
This text of Juarez v. Harding (Juarez v. Harding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Arturo Juarez, et al., No. CV-25-08044-PCT-DWL
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Rolland E. Harding, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject- 16 matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). 17 Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court 18 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 19 action.” 20 Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship 21 between the plaintiff and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 22 exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement 23 when “all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons 24 on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 25 The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of 26 proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the 27 evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal 28 Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to 1 invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the 2 actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 3 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). 4 The complaint alleges that Defendant Roland E. Hardin is “currently a resident of 5 Arizona.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 3.) This allegation is inadequate to establish Hardin’s citizenship. 6 As to individual natural persons, an allegation about an individual’s residence does not 7 establish his or her citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. “It has 8 long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly different things within the 9 meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of 10 the . . . courts of the United States; and that a mere averment of residence in a particular 11 state is not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose of jurisdiction.” 12 Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). “To be a citizen of a state, a natural 13 person must first be a citizen of the United States. The natural person’s state citizenship 14 is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s 15 domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to 16 which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59 (emphasis added) (citations 17 omitted). 18 Furthermore, the complaint alleges that “Plaintiffs were citizens of Nevada at the 19 time of this incident” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1), the “incident” presumably being the vehicle collision 20 on March 12, 2022 that forms the basis of the complaint. However, “the jurisdiction of 21 the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought,” Grupo 22 Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004), not at the time of an 23 incident described in the complaint. Plaintiffs must allege their citizenship as it “existed 24 at the time of filing” the original complaint. Id. 25 Thus, Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint that rectifies the identified 26 deficiencies. 27 Accordingly, 28 IT IS ORDERED that by March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs shall file an amended 1 || complaint establishing the relevant jurisdictional facts, as described in this order. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended || complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of 4|| subject matter jurisdiction. 5 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025. 6 7 Lm ee” g f t _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Juarez v. Harding, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juarez-v-harding-azd-2025.