Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation

W.D. Washington

Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation

DecidedApril 7, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00011

StatusUnknown

This text of Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation (Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 KEVIN KIHNKE, et al., CASE NO. C21-0011-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants LM Insurance Corporation and 18 Liberty Insurance Corporation’s (collectively “Liberty Mutual”) motion to dismiss or 19 alternatively to transfer venue (Dkt. No. 21). Liberty Mutual argues that Plaintiffs’ First 20 Amended Complaint (“FAC”)1 (Dkt. No. 18) fails to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 21 (See Dkt. No. 21 at 13–14.) Specifically at issue is the FAC’s failure to affirmatively plead Mr. 22 Kihnke’s citizenship. (Id.)

23 1 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 18) on February 22, 2021 and then 24 refiled the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) on February 23, 2021. Plaintiffs represent to the Court that the documents are identical. (Dkt. No. 24 at 13 n.5.) For purposes of this order all 25 references to Plaintiffs’ complaint are to the First Amended Complaint filed on February 22, 2021 (Dkt. No. 18), which the Court currently views to be the operative complaint for purposes 26 of Liberty Mutual’s motion. 1 Liberty Mutual is correct. Plaintiffs must affirmatively plead each party’s citizenship to 2 support the Court’s jurisdiction in this alleged diversity action. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 3 8(a); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). However, 4 Plaintiffs suggest this deficiency can be easily cured through a “one-word amendment, if 5 necessary” and seek leave to do so. (Dkt. No. 24 at 18–19.) 6 Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. They may amend the complaint solely for purposes of 7 establishing diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. The amendment is due April 12, 2021. 8 If Plaintiffs choose to amend, Liberty Mutual need not renew its motion to dismiss or transfer 9 venue (Dkt. No. 21). The Court will, instead, consider the motion in light of a second amended 10 complaint. 11 The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss or alternatively 12 transfer venue (Dkt. No. 21) for consideration on April 12, 2021. 13 DATED this 7th day of April 2021. 14 William M. McCool Clerk of Court 15 s/Paula McNabb 16 Deputy Clerk 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 KEVIN KIHNKE, et al., CASE NO. C21-0011-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants LM Insurance Corporation and 18 Liberty Insurance Corporation’s (collectively “Liberty Mutual”) motion to dismiss or 19 alternatively to transfer venue (Dkt. No. 21). Liberty Mutual argues that Plaintiffs’ First 20 Amended Complaint (“FAC”)1 (Dkt. No. 18) fails to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 21 (See Dkt. No. 21 at 13–14.) Specifically at issue is the FAC’s failure to affirmatively plead Mr. 22 Kihnke’s citizenship. (Id.)

23 1 Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 18) on February 22, 2021 and then 24 refiled the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) on February 23, 2021. Plaintiffs represent to the Court that the documents are identical. (Dkt. No. 24 at 13 n.5.) For purposes of this order all 25 references to Plaintiffs’ complaint are to the First Amended Complaint filed on February 22, 2021 (Dkt. No. 18), which the Court currently views to be the operative complaint for purposes 26 of Liberty Mutual’s motion. 1 Liberty Mutual is correct. Plaintiffs must affirmatively plead each party’s citizenship to 2 support the Court’s jurisdiction in this alleged diversity action. See W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 3 8(a); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). However, 4 Plaintiffs suggest this deficiency can be easily cured through a “one-word amendment, if 5 necessary” and seek leave to do so. (Dkt. No. 24 at 18–19.) 6 Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. They may amend the complaint solely for purposes of 7 establishing diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653. The amendment is due April 12, 2021. 8 If Plaintiffs choose to amend, Liberty Mutual need not renew its motion to dismiss or transfer 9 venue (Dkt. No. 21). The Court will, instead, consider the motion in light of a second amended 10 complaint. 11 The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss or alternatively 12 transfer venue (Dkt. No. 21) for consideration on April 12, 2021. 13 DATED this 7th day of April 2021. 14 William M. McCool Clerk of Court 15 s/Paula McNabb 16 Deputy Clerk 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kihnke v. LM Insurance Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kihnke-v-lm-insurance-corporation-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack