HbR ES bd AUG 16 2019 Clerk, US Distinct Court District Of iontana Helena

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

MURRAY MORGAN, RENEE ANDREWS, and ROBERT ORSELLO, No. CV-19-43-BU-SEH Plaintiffs, Vs. ORDER RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant.

Defendants removed this action from state court by Notice of Removal filed August 14, 2019.' However, jurisdiction is not well-pleaded. The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. -Gaus

v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction requires the defendant to carry the burden of showing removal is proper. /d. Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

as to the right of removal in the first instance. Jd.

Doe. 1.

The Notice asserts federal jurisdiction under

(a)(1) and 1441.

(a)(1) states: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1) citizens of different States; Only residence of Plaintiffs is alleged. The diversity statute speaks of diversity of citizenship, not of residency. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert,

(9th Cir. 2001). Citizenship cannot be “deemed” by residency. /d. Diversity of citizenship is not pleaded.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) contemplates that lack of jurisdiction can be raised

at any time. Moreover, the objection may be raised by a party, or by the courts

own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after the trial and judgment entry. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.,

(2006). ORDERED: This case will be remanded to state court on August 23, 2019, unless Defendant files an amended notice of removal properly alleging jurisdiction on or

? Doc. 1 at 9 11.

before that date. th DATED this _/6 “Gay of August, 2019.

□ * SAM E. HADDON United States District Judge