Route 66 Plaza v. Benchmark Insurance Company

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ROUTE 66 PLAZA d/b/a ROUTE 66 PLAZA and/or ROUTE 66 PLAZA, LLC and/or ROUTE 66 PLAZA d/b/a WILLIAM GARDNER, JARDINERO INVESTMENTS, LLC, NM CENTER FOR COSMETIC AND FAMILY DENTISTRY d/b/a KIRTLAND DENTAL, and/or NM CENTER FOR COSMETIC AND FAMILY DENTISTRY PA, and WILLIAM GARDNER individually,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civ. No. 25-462 KWR/SCY

BENCHMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, COTERIE INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, and NEXT INSURANCE US COMPANY,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte, following its July 28, 2025 Order to File Rule 7.1 Notices And Amend Complaint. Doc. 22. The Court noted that the complaint invoked federal diversity jurisdiction, but did not contain a factual basis supporting such jurisdiction. Id. at 2. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August 25. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, attaching the proposed amended complaint. Doc. 28. The proposed amended complaint does not cure the jurisdictional defects. The proposed amended complaint alleges that Plaintiff William Gardner is a citizen of California. Doc. 28-1 at 3 ¶ 5. The proposed amended complaint does not contain information on the citizenship of Defendant Next Insurance US Company. However, on August 11—prior to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint—Defendant Next Insurance filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement stating that both its place of incorporation and principal place of business is California. Doc. 27. It thus appears that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this case. “Diversity Jurisdiction requires complete diversity—no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed no later than October 2, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if such a response or a voluntary dismissal is not filed by October 2, 2025, the Court may dismiss this action without prejudice without further notice. live STEVEN C4Y¥YARBROUGH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE