Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

Full title: Sierra-Sonora Enterprises, Inc.; Jackson Hole Partners, LP; Grand Teton…

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Feb 10, 2010

No. CV 10-0105-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2010)

Opinion

No. CV 10-0105-PHX-JAT.

February 10, 2010

ORDER

JAMES TEILBORG, District Judge

"Inquiring whether the court has jurisdiction is a federal judge's first duty in every case." Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, L.L.C., 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7^th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092, 1094 (9^th Cir. 1990) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9^th Cir. 2006) (discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company); Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185 (1990) (discussing the citizenship of a partnership).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that by February 24, 2010, Defendant Domino's Pizza LLC (as the party asserting jurisdiction and therefore, with the burden of pleading jurisdiction, see Industrial Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092) shall file an amended notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.¹ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is cautioned that it will be given one opportunity to amend to cure the jurisdictional allegations. The Court will not issue additional show cause orders to assist Defendant in pleading jurisdiction.² Therefore, if the amended notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded without the Court granting Defendant any further opportunity to amend.

1 The amended notice of removal must contain all jurisdictional allegations sufficient to plead jurisdiction in one document and should not anticipate that the Court will read any previous filings to assess jurisdiction. See Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 695-96 (9^th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. Allstate, 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9^th Cir. 2004).

2 The Court should not give a party advice because advice undermines the district judge's role as an impartial decision maker. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004).