Johnson v. Secure Ventures LLC ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 June Johnson, et al., No. CV-22-00568-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Secure Ventures LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On April 12, 2022, the Court issued the following Order: 16 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As a result, they can hear only those cases that the Constitution and Congress have authorized 17 them to adjudicate: namely, cases involving diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or cases to which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. 18 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Here, the complaint alleges jurisdiction based on diversity. (Doc. 1 at 19 5-6). The complaint acknowledges that diversity requires that Plaintiffs and Defendant be citizens of different states. (Doc. 1 at 6). The complaint then 20 alleges that Plaintiffs and Defendant are both citizens of Arizona. (Id.) This is not even a good faith allegation of diversity. 21 Nonetheless the Court notes that Defendant is a limited liability company. Limited liability companies take on the citizenship of all of their 22 members. Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court does not know how Plaintiffs determined that 23 Defendant is a citizen of Arizona. Plaintiffs failed to allege the citizenship of every member of Defendant which is required to plead diversity 24 jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will take no further action on this case until 25 Plaintiffs plead federal subject matter jurisdiction. Further, if Plaintiffs fail to plead federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed 26 without prejudice. Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that by April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs must file a supplement to the complaint properly pleading federal subject matter 28 jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs fail to file this supplement, or if the supplement fails to plead a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be 1 dismissed without prejudice. The Court will not consider Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis until Plaintiffs establish jurisdiction. 2 (Doc. 10). 3 On April 18, 2022, the Court quoted the above Order and then issued the following 4 additional Order: 5 Without mentioning the April 12, 2022 Order, Plaintiffs filed an 6 amended complaint with the same deficient jurisdictional allegation regarding diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 16). (It is possible Plaintiffs had not 7 yet received the April 12, 2022 Order at the time of filing the amended complaint.) In this amended complaint, Plaintiffs include an allegation that 8 this case arises under federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 16 at 8). All allegations of a constitutional violation in the amended complaint are made 9 against the Arizona Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court. (Id. at 1-26). None of these courts is a party to this 10 case. Without considering the merits of any of these claims, this Court finds that allegations against non-parties cannot form the basis for federal subject 11 matter jurisdiction. Cf. Skyline Vista Equities, LLC v. Agoh, No. 12-CV- 1497-MMA BGS, 2012 WL 2417445, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2012) 12 (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on a third-party complaint). Thus, the amended complaint still fails to plead a basis for federal 13 subject matter jurisdiction. As stated in the April 12, 2022 Order, this Court will take no further action in this case until jurisdiction is established; this 14 includes that the Court will not rule on any of Plaintiffs’ renewed requests for emergency relief until jurisdiction is established. Therefore, 15 IT IS ORDERED that by April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs must file a supplement to the amended complaint properly pleading federal subject 16 matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs fail to file this supplement, or if the supplement fails to plead a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, this 17 case will be dismissed without prejudice. 18 (Doc. 20). 19 On April 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a document they called a “Complaint 20 (Supplement)”. (Doc. 21). Regardless of its title, the document is 19 pages and is clearly 21 intended to be a Second Amended Complaint. However, a Second Amended Complaint 22 cannot be filed without leave of Court and accordingly will be stricken. See Fed. R. Civ. 23 P. 15. 24 Additionally, Plaintiffs’ April 20, 2022, filing fails to cure the jurisdictional 25 deficiencies recounted in this Court’s April 18, 2022 Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim 26 federal question jurisdiction based on claimed constitutional depravations that Plaintiffs 27 attribute only to the Arizona Courts. None of the claims are attributed against Defendant. 28 As the Court previously stated, constitutional claims alleged against non-parties do not 1 || confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. (See Doc. 20). Additionally, no allegation 2|| is made that Defendant is a state or government actor who would be bound by any || constitutional requirements. Plaintiffs appear to have abandoned their allegation of 4|| diversity jurisdiction, so the Court has not addressed it. Thus, even if the Court considered || Plaintiffs’ April 20, 2022 filing, it does not allege a proper basis for federal subject matter 6 || jurisdiction. 7 Plaintiffs will be given one last opportunity to allege a basis for federal subject 8 || matter jurisdiction by filing a supplement to their amended complaint (Plaintiffs may not 9|| restate the entire complaint unless Plaintiffs file a motion to amend the complaint). In this || supplement, Plaintiffs must succinctly allege their basis for federal subject matter 11 || jurisdiction. This supplement shall not exceed 2 pages. As the Court has previously stated, the Court will take no further action on Plaintiffs’ various requests for emergency relief 13 || until Plaintiffs establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. 14 Based on the foregoing, 15 IT IS ORDERED that by May 2, 2022, Plaintiffs must file a supplement to the 16 || amended complaint properly pleading federal subject matter jurisdiction (this supplement 17 || shall not exceed 2 pages). If Plaintiffs fail to file this supplement, or if the supplement fails 18 || to plead a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. This will be Plaintiffs last opportunity to establish federal subject matter 20 || jurisdiction. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment Complaint 22 || (captioned “Complaint (Supplement)”) (Doc. 21) is stricken. 23 Dated this 21st day of April, 2022. 24 25 i C 26 James A. Teilborg 27 Senior United States District Judge 28 -3-