Whitehorse Medical Transportation LLC v. Arizona Group

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Whitehorse Medical Transportation LLC, No. CV-25-02984-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Arizona Group, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed this suit in federal court alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction. 16 The court called for a supplement regarding each party’s citizenship and according to the 17 supplement, both plaintiff and defendant The Arizona Group are citizens of Arizona. (Doc. 18 12.) Diversity jurisdiction “requires ‘complete diversity’ of citizenship, meaning that ‘the 19 citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.’” Demarest 20 v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 920 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Caterpillar v. 21 Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). Instead of “complete diversity,” the complaint appears to 22 believe it is sufficient for there to be “minimal diversity” between the parties. “Minimal 23 diversity” refers to the plaintiff being a citizen of a state different from any defendant. See, 24 e.g., Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 2019). But minimal 25 diversity is not enough in this case. See Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 26 1277 (9th Cir. 2017) (“complete diversity” is required in most civil actions but “minimal 27 diversity” is sufficient in certain class actions). 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for || lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 4 Dated this 27th day of August, 2025. 5 6 a , 2 f 7 WW M. LK Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-