First-Citizen Bank & Trust Company v. Heard

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA First-Citizen Bank & Trust Company, No. CV-25-02453-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. John P Heard, 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). 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.”

19 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).

24 The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of proof.

25 Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986). “[W]here the district court has doubts about whether diversity exists, the district court may insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify its allegations by a preponderance of evidence.” Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). “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).

5 The complaint alleges that “Defendant John Heard is an individual residing in Maricopa County, Arizona.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 3.) This allegation is inadequate. 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.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 13 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 Thus, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint1 that rectifies the identified deficiency.

20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that by August 6, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint establishing the relevant jurisdictional facts, as described in this order.

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

26 /// This amended complaint pursuant to court order will not affect Plaintiff’s right under Rule 15(a)(1) to later amend once as a matter of course, if it chooses to do so. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1006-09 (9th Cir. 2015).

1 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2025. ; iL 3 "Dominic W. Lanza 4 United States District Judge -3-