Juarez v. Harding

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

9 Arturo Juarez, et al., No. CV-25-08044-PCT-DWL 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Rolland E. Harding, et al., 13 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 be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added).

4 The complaint alleges that Defendant Roland E. Hardin is “currently a resident of Arizona.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 3.) This allegation is inadequate to establish Hardin’s citizenship.

6 As to individual natural persons, an allegation about an individual’s residence does not establish his or her citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction. “It has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the . . . courts of the United States; and that a mere averment of residence in a particular state is not an averment of citizenship in that state for the purpose of jurisdiction.”

12 Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 141, 143 (1905). “To be a citizen of a state, a natural person must first be a citizen of the United States. The natural person’s state citizenship is then determined by her state of domicile, not her state of residence. A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 858-59 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

18 Furthermore, the complaint alleges that “Plaintiffs were citizens of Nevada at the time of this incident” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1), the “incident” presumably being the vehicle collision on March 12, 2022 that forms the basis of the complaint. However, “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought,” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004), not at the time of an incident described in the complaint. Plaintiffs must allege their citizenship as it “existed at the time of filing” the original complaint. Id. 25 Thus, Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint that rectifies the identified deficiencies.

27 Accordingly, 28 IT IS ORDERED that by March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs shall file an amended || complaint establishing the relevant jurisdictional facts, as described in this order.

2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended || complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of 4|| subject matter jurisdiction.

5 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025.

7 Lm ee” g f t _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 9 United States District Judge -3-