Tjalas v. Ruark

Opinion

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

9 Kirk Tjalas, et al., No. CV-24-00462-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jamin Ruark, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Federal courts, unlike state courts, are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. 17 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has an 18 independent duty to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Arbaugh v. Y&H 19 Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a 20 particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A-Z Intern. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 21 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted). The party asserting federal 22 jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 23 Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this action on March 5, 2024, asserting the existence 24 of federal diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 ¶ 48.) On review, the Court determined that the 25 Complaint fails to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 8.) On March 6, 2024, 26 the Court issued an order to show cause noting that, despite claiming the existence of 27 diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs failed to identify the citizenship of the parties involved and 28 failed to show a complete diversity of such citizenships. The Court pointed out the specific 1 deficiencies in the Complaint and then directed Plaintiffs to either amend their Complaint 2 or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 3 Plaintiffs chose not to amend their Complaint and instead filed a Response to the 4 Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiffs’ Response fails to demonstrate that subject- 5 matter jurisdiction exists. 6 First, as clearly explained in the Court’s prior order, limited liability corporations 7 (“LLC”) are citizens of every state in which their members are citizens. Johnson v. 8 Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Despite noting this 9 for Plaintiffs, the Response fails to identify the membership of each named LLC or the 10 citizenship of each respective member. Providing an address of where the LLCs are 11 incorporated or have a principal place of business is insufficient; without identifying the 12 members of Act Now, Atlantic Home Health Care, and Haven Home Health Care and the 13 citizenship of those members, the Court has no way of determining whether diversity 14 jurisdiction exists. 15 Second, the Court’s prior order noted that the Complaint does not identify what kind 16 of entities Charis Rescue Foundation and Charis Healthcare Holdings are. Plaintiffs’ 17 Response fails to address this. Without this information, the Court is unable to determine 18 whether to treat these defendants are corporations, LLCs, or partnerships for the purpose 19 of deciding whether diversity jurisdiction exists. 20 Last, the Court’s prior order noted that the Complaint failed to identify the 21 respective domiciles of individuals named in the action. Although Plaintiffs’ response 22 provides the purported domicile of each named individual, Plaintiffs’ corporate disclosure 23 statement suggests that complete diversity is lacking. (See Doc. 5 at 2 (identifying Plaintiff 24 Kirk Tjalas and Defendant Jamin Ruark as having Arizona citizenships).) 25 In sum, the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s 26 Response to the Order to Show Cause (which Plaintiffs elected to file in lieu of an amended 27 complaint) is largely unresponsive to the jurisdictional issues the Court identified. Because 28 Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court must 1] presume jurisdiction is lacking and dismiss the case.! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE || for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 5 Dated this 15th day of March, 2024. 6 b 4 bla _ 8 Do . Rayes 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Nothing in this order precludes Plaintiffs from refiling their lawsuit in a state court 28|| demonstrate ths existence of complete diversity. There is no reason why this ease must be in federal court.

-3-