Filed: Feb. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior 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 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior 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 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 8..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior 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 (7th Cir. 2003). In this case, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently plead jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 92-93 (2010) (discussing the citizenship of a corporation); Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the citizenship of a limited liability company).
More specifically, the Court finds that for alleging the citizenship of a corporation, alleging the principal place of business as "not Arizona" is inadequate to allow this Court to independently assess jurisdiction. Second, for alleging the citizenship of a limited liability company ("LLC"), each member of the LLC must be identified and that person or entity's citizenship must be properly alleged.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by March 6, 2015, the removing Defendants shall file a supplement to the notice of removal properly alleging federal subject matter jurisdiction, or this case will be remanded for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are cautioned that they will be given one opportunity to supplement to cure the defects in the jurisdictional assertions. The Court will not issue additional orders to assist Defendants in pleading jurisdiction.1 Therefore, if the supplement to the notice of removal fails to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be remanded without the Court sua sponte granting Defendants any further opportunities to supplement.