6130 Barnes Ridgeview, LLC v. Travelers Casualty Company of America
Filing
21
ORDER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 06/12/2018, re: 20 Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery is DENIED. ORDERED that defendant shall have until 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 2018, to file a response to the Court's May 25, 2018 show cause order. (sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01238-PAB
6130 BARNES RIDGEVIEW, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery [Docket No. 20]. Defendant asserts that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 3.
On May 25, 2018, the Court ordered defendant to show cause why the case
should not be remanded due to the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket
No. 17 at 3. The Court found that defendant had not established diversity jurisdiction
because it had failed to identify plaintiff’s members and the citizenship of those
members. Id. In its motion for leave, filed on June 5, 2018, defendant states that it has
“contacted counsel for Plaintiff to ascertain whether he would voluntarily identify the
members of 6130 Barnes Ridgeview, LLC, their residence, and domicile.” Docket No.
20 at 2, ¶ 5. Despite several attempts to follow up with plaintiff’s counsel, defendant
asserts that it has not yet received the requested information. Id. Defendant now
seeks “leave of Court to issue limited jurisdictional discovery to Plaintiff to ascertain the
identities, residence, and domicile” of plaintiff’s members. Id. at 2-3, ¶ 6. Defendant
also asks that the Court extend the deadline for defendant’s response to the show
cause order “to a date after Plaintiff’s responses to [the requested] discovery come
due.” Id. at 3, ¶ 8.
“[T]he presumption is that [federal courts] lack jurisdiction unless and until a
plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to establish it.” Celli v. Shoell, 40 F.3d 324, 327 (10th
Cir. 1994). It is well established that “[t]he 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). W hen subject matter jurisdiction is
challenged, its proponent must prove citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence.
Wallace v. HealthOne, 79 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1232 (D. Colo. 2000).
Defendant does not dispute that its allegations are presently insufficient to
establish federal jurisdiction. Instead, it requests an extension of time and the Court’s
authorization to conduct limited discovery on the issue of plaintiff’s citizenship. While a
district court has the authority to permit discovery in order for a party to prove diversity
jurisdiction, such discovery is discretionary. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem.
Co., 443 F.3d 676, 691 (9th Cir. 2006) (where party invoking federal jurisdiction has
“failed to present to the district court any pleading, evidence, or admission that
establishes that it is more likely than not that jurisdiction lies,” it is “well within the court’s
discretion to remand to state court rather than ordering jurisdictional discovery, with the
knowledge that later-discovered facts may prompt a second attempt at removal”).
Defendant does not cite any authority supporting a right of discovery regarding an
2
LLC’s members. Nor does defendant claim that the denial of jurisdictional discovery will
result in any tangible prejudice, such as the denial of a proper forum in which to defend
against plaintiff’s claims. See Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., No. 13-cv00544-PAB, 2013 WL 1151912, at *3 (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2013) (denying request for
jurisdictional discovery where there was “no indication that dismissing [the] case [would]
prejudice plaintiff by depriving it of a forum in which to assert its claims”).1 The Court
therefore finds that permitting jurisdictional discovery in this case would undermine the
well-established rule that “[t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing such jurisdiction as a threshold matter.” See Radil, 384 F.3d at 1224; see
also Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1216 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[S]hould the
plaintiff request leave to conduct discovery to support its assertion that the case is
properly before the court, the court would deny such a request. In such a situation, the
court would not reserve ruling on the motion to dismiss in order to allow the plaintiff to
look for what the plaintiff should have had – but did not – before coming through the
1
Courts in this circuit sometimes cite Sizova v. National Institute of Standards &
Technology, 282 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2002), for the proposition that a litigant is
prejudiced by a court’s refusal to grant jurisdictional discovery any time “pertinent facts
bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory
showing of the facts is necessary.” 282 F.3d at 1326 (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Wells
Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)).
However, neither Sizova nor the Ninth Circuit case it cites establishes a party’s right of
discovery to establish diversity jurisdiction as a threshold matter. See Sizova, 282 F.3d
at 1326-28 (holding that district court improperly granted motion to dismiss without
allowing for limited jurisdictional discovery on whether plaintiff had exhausted her
administrative remedies); Wells Fargo & Co., 556 F.2d at 430 (remanding case to
district court for consideration of whether Lanham Act conferred subject matter
jurisdiction over defendant’s foreign activities). Such a rule would be inconsistent with
the presumption that a federal court “lack[s] jurisdiction unless and until a plaintiff
pleads sufficient facts to establish it.” Celli, 40 F.3d at 327.
3
courthouse doors, even though the court would have the inherent power to do so.”).
Although the Court denies defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery, the
Court will grant defendant a limited extension of time to respond to the Court’s show
cause order. Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional
Discovery [Docket No. 20] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant shall have until 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 2018, to file a
response to the Court’s May 25, 2018 show cause order.
DATED June 12, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?