Yu v. Fydeski

D. Arizona

Yu v. Fydeski

DecidedJanuary 10, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-02182

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Yu v. Fydeski, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Suzanne Yu, No. CV-22-02182-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Steven Fydeski, Desert Creek Film Fund I LLC, Desert Creek Film Fund Management 13 LLC, Cloudburst Entertainment LLC, Cloudburst Distribution LLC, Storyboard 14 Media LLC, and The Comeback Trail LLC,

15 Defendants. 16 17 “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every 18 case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th 19 Cir. 2003). In this case, Plaintiff has alleged jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 20 See (Doc. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332)). However, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead 21 the citizenship of the parties. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 22 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, a complaint must list the citizenship of every 23 member of any party that is a limited partnership or limited liability company. NewGen, 24 LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 Accordingly, 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS ORDERED that by January 23, 2023, Plaintiff must file a supplement to the 2 || complaint properly pleading the citizenship of every party or this case will be dismissed, 3 || without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 4 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. 5 6 '

g James A. C rg Senior 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-

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

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

9 Suzanne Yu, No. CV-22-02182-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Steven Fydeski, Desert Creek Film Fund I LLC, Desert Creek Film Fund Management 13 LLC, Cloudburst Entertainment LLC, Cloudburst Distribution LLC, Storyboard 14 Media LLC, and The Comeback Trail LLC,

15 Defendants. 16 17 “Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge’s first duty in every 18 case.” Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th 19 Cir. 2003). In this case, Plaintiff has alleged jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. 20 See (Doc. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332)). However, the complaint fails to sufficiently plead 21 the citizenship of the parties. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 22 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, a complaint must list the citizenship of every 23 member of any party that is a limited partnership or limited liability company. NewGen, 24 LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 Accordingly, 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS ORDERED that by January 23, 2023, Plaintiff must file a supplement to the 2 || complaint properly pleading the citizenship of every party or this case will be dismissed, 3 || without prejudice, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. 4 Dated this 10th day of January, 2023. 5 6 '

g James A. C rg Senior 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-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yu v. Fydeski, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yu-v-fydeski-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack