Cresswell v. Country Preferred Insurance Company

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Harold Cresswell, et al., No. CV-20-01821-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Country Preferred Insurance Company, et al., Defendants.

15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject- matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).

17 Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”

20 Diversity jurisdiction exists when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A controversy meets this requirement when “all the persons on one side of it are citizens of different states from all the persons on the other side.” Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806).

25 The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should able _ to allege affirmatively the 2|| actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, || 857 (9th Cir. 2001).

4 A corporation, whether incorporated in a state of the United States or in a foreign country, is “deemed a citizen of its place of incorporation and the location of its principal 6|| place of business.” Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 7\| F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1994).

8 Defendant states in its notice of removal that “Defendant is an Illinois || corporation.” (Doc. 1 4 3.) However, this allegation is vague and conclusory. Defendant || must affirmatively allege both its place of incorporation and the location of its principal || place of business. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 12}| (th Cir. 2014).

13 To cure this pleading deficiency, the Court will require the removing Defendant to file an amended notice of removal. Star Ins. Co. v. West, 2010 WL 3715155, *2 (D.

Ariz. 2010); see also NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) || (“Courts may permit parties to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction at any stage in || the proceedings.”). Defendant is advised that its failure to timely comply with this order || shall result in the remand of this action without further notice for lack of subject matter || jurisdiction.

20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that removing Defendant shall file an amended notice of || removal properly stating a jurisdictional basis for this action no later than October 5, || 2020.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant fails to file an amended notice of || removal by October 5, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to state court.

26 Dated this 28th day of September, 2020.

27 4 7 28 "Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge -2-