McCleary v. Singh

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-08056
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Janice Louise McCleary, et al., No. CV-24-08056-PCT-DWL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Narinder B Singh, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter 16 jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to 17 Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any 18 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 19 Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between 20 the plaintiffs and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive 21 of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement when “all 22 the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other 23 side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 24 The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of 25 proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the 26 evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal 27 Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke 28 diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the 1 relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 Plaintiffs bring this action asserting diversity as the sole basis of the Court’s subject- 3 matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs attempted to allege the citizenship of the 4 parties by alleging that each plaintiff is a “resident” of Missouri and that each defendant 5 who is a natural person is a “resident” of California. (Id. ¶¶ 1-3, 6-8.) As to natural persons, 6 an allegation about an individual’s residence does not establish citizenship for purposes of 7 establishing diversity jurisdiction. “It has long been settled that residence 8 and citizenship [are] wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the 9 laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the United States; and that 10 a mere averment of residence in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that 11 state for the purpose of jurisdiction.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). 12 “To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. The 13 natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state 14 of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the 15 intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59 16 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 17 “[F]ailure to specify [a party’s] state citizenship” is a “serious pleading defect” that 18 is “fatal” to an “assertion of diversity jurisdiction.” Id. at 857-58. Plaintiffs must amend 19 the Complaint to allege the citizenship of the individual natural persons who are parties to 20 this lawsuit.1 NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Courts 21 may permit parties to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in the 22 proceedings.”). While Plaintiffs are expected to know their own citizenship, the citizenship 23 of the defendants who are natural persons “may be based solely on information and belief.” 24 Ehrman v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint properly 27 1 This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiffs’ right 28 under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if they choose to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015). 1 || stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs shall 2|| serve copy of this order along with the amended complaint so Defendants will understand 3 || the reason for the amendment. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended 5 || complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of 6 || subject-matter jurisdiction. 7 Dated this 8th day of May, 2024. 8 9 Lm ee” 10 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-