United States District Court, D. Colorado
CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor by way of merger with Sussex Insurance Company f/k/a Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Companion Specialty Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff,
CLAY STREET CONDOS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, ELEVATION BUILDERS, INC. d/b/a Generation Development, a Colorado Corporation, and CLAY/28TH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado Non-Profit Corporation, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A. BRIMMER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court takes up this matter sua sponte on
plaintiff's complaint [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff states
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 4,
every case and at every stage of the proceeding, a federal
court must satisfy itself as to its own jurisdiction, even if
doing so requires sua sponte action. See
Citizens Concerned for Separation of Church & State v.
City & County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1297 (10th
Cir. 1980). Absent an assurance that jurisdiction exists, a
court may not proceed in a case. See Cunningham v. BHP
Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th
Cir. 2005). Courts are well-advised to raise the issue of
jurisdiction on their own, regardless of parties'
apparent acquiescence. First, it is the Court's duty to
do so. Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859
F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988). Second, regarding subject
matter jurisdiction, “the consent of the parties is
irrelevant, principles of estoppel do not apply, and a party
does not waive the requirement by failing to challenge
jurisdiction.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie
des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982)
(internal citations omitted). Finally, delay in addressing
the issue only compounds the problem if, despite much time
and expense having been dedicated to the case, a lack of
jurisdiction causes it to be dismissed. See U.S. Fire
Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. Co., No.
09-cv-00491-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2338116, at *3 (D. Colo. July
party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.”
Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224
(10th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff asserts that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant
to that section, “district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive
of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The facts
presently alleged are insufficient to establish
asserts, upon information and belief, that defendants are
Colorado entities with their principal places of business in
Denver, Colorado. See Docket No. 1 at 3-4,
¶¶ 10-13. These allegations are insufficient to
establish defendants' citizenship for two reasons. First,
the Court reads plaintiff's averment “on
information and belief” to mean that plaintiff does not
have affirmative knowledge of the facts bearing on
defendants' citizenship. Such unsupported allegations do
not confer subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
See Yates v. Portofino Real Estate Props. Co., LLC,
No. 08-cv-00324-PAB-MJW, 2009 WL 2588833, at *3 (D. Colo.
Aug. 17, 2009) (requiring plaintiff to “address the
citizenship of each of [defendant's] members without
resorting merely to their ‘information and belief'
as to the same”); U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL
2338116, at *3 (finding allegations based on
“information and belief” insufficient to confer
subject matter jurisdiction). Second, plaintiff has not
alleged the citizenship of each of the members of defendant
Clay Street Condos, LLC. Given plaintiff's averment that
defendant is a limited liability company, this information is
necessary to establish defendant's citizenship for
purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Siloam Springs
Hotel, LLC v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1237-38
(10th Cir. 2015) (“[I]n determining the citizenship of
an unincorporated association for purposes of diversity,
federal courts must include all the entities'
plaintiff's allegations are presently insufficient to
allow the Court to determine the citizenship of defendants
and whether the Court has jurisdiction, see United States
ex rel. General Rock & Sand Corp. v. Chuska Dev.
Corp., 55 F.3d 1491, 1495 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The
party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor must
allege in his pleading the facts essential to show
jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), it
that, on or before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January
16, 2019, plaintiff shall show cause why this case
should not be dismissed due to the ...