Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Del Webb's Coventry Homes Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 11, 2013

Del Webb's Coventry Homes Inc., et al.
v.
National Union Fire Insurance Company, et al.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

GARY ALLEN FEESS, District Judge.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiffs Del Webb's Coventry Homes, Inc., Anthem Arizona, LLC, Pulte Home Corporation, Pulte Development Corporation, and Del Webb's Coventry Homes Construction Co. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against National Union Fire Insurance Co., Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Federated Service Insurance Co., Steadfast Insurance Co., Maryland Casualty Co., and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co. (collectively, "Defendants"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief-duty to defend.[1] (Docket No. 1, [Complaint ("Compl.")] ¶¶ 44-66.)

Plaintiffs were endorsed as additional insured parties under a general liability insurance policy. (Id. ¶ 27.) On December 28, 2007, Arizona homeowners filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants in the Maricopa County Superior Court, [2] alleging construction deficiencies. Del Webb requested that each Defendant defend Del Webb in that action. (Id. ¶ 42.)

Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant breached its duty to defend Del Webb by refusing to defend Del Webb, or offering to pay only a small portion of what was owed under the policies, or never responding to Del Webb's tender of defense. (Id.)

Plaintiffs assert that jurisdiction is appropriate in this case pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). (Id. ¶¶ 15-17.) The complaint fails to allege the principle place of business for each of the Defendants and merely states that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. (Id.) As explained in greater detail below, Plaintiffs have failed to properly aver that jurisdiction is proper in the present action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides as follows:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds... $75, 000... and is between-
(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state... as plaintiff and citizens of a state or different States.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

For purposes of § 1332(a), a corporation is deemed to be a "citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.