DT Care LLC et al v. Brodie

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DT Care LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DeAjah Lanae Brodie,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03435-PHX-DWL
ORDER
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.”
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).
The party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction has the burden of
proof, Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1986), by a preponderance of the
evidence. McNatt v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 972 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir. 1992); see 13B Federal
Practice § 3611 at 521 & n. 34. “Absent unusual circumstances, a party seeking to
Case 2:25-cv-03435-DWL Document 9 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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).
Plaintiffs have not properly alleged Defendant’s citizenship. 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 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).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege their own citizenship. An
LLC “is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v.
Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, to
properly establish diversity jurisdiction “with respect to a limited liability company, the
citizenship of all of the members must be pled.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840
F.3d 606, 611 (9th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint1 that affirmatively alleges the
citizenship of each member of each LLC, using the proper legal standard—the amended
complaint must include the place of domicile for members who are natural individuals,
the place of incorporation and principal place of business for members that are
corporations, and, if any of the members are LLCs, the citizenship of each of the member
1 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).
Case 2:25-cv-03435-DWL Document 9 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LLC’s members must be alleged, again using the proper legal standards.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by January 23, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file an amended
complaint establishing the relevant jurisdictional facts, as described in this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended
complaint, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss this case, without prejudice, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-03435-DWL Document 9 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3