Smith et al v. Robey et al

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
Frank Smith, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Thomas Beck Robey, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-08234-PCT-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). “[W]here the district court has
doubts about whether diversity exists, the district court may insist that the jurisdictional
facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand
Case 3:25-cv-08234-DWL Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 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
that the party alleging jurisdiction justify its allegations by a preponderance of evidence.”
Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). “Absent unusual
circumstances, a party seeking to 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).
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Frank Smith was a “resident” of Illinois,
Plaintiffs Willie T. Lynch and Annette Lynch were “residents” of Georgia, and
Defendants Thomas Beck Robey and Jill Robey were “residents” of Connecticut “when
the events that give rise to this action arose.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1-3.) These allegations are
inadequate. 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 (cleaned up).
Furthermore, the issue is not where the parties were domiciled at the time of “the
events that give rise to this action” but rather where they were domiciled at the time that
the complaint was filed. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571
(2004) (“[T]he jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the
action brought. This time-of-filing rule . . . measures all challenges to subject-matter
jurisdiction premised upon diversity of citizenship against the state of facts that existed at
the time of filing.”) (cleaned up).1
1 The citizenship of a dismissed party is no longer relevant. 541 U.S. at 572-73.
Case 3:25-cv-08234-DWL Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 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
Thus, Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint that rectifies the identified
deficiencies.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that by April 7, 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 24th day of March, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-08234-DWL Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3