TFG Life Settlements, LLC v. Centurion Insurance Services Group, LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 ORDERED:The Plaintiff, TFG Life Settlements, LLC's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery, for a Ruling Upon Its Pending Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, and for a Discovery and Revised Br iefing Schedule. The Plaintiff will have up to and including May 5, 2016, to complete jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff's brief on diversity jurisdiction is due on or before May 20, 2016.Defendant's response is due on or before June 7, 2016. The Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 4/8/2016. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
TFG LIFE SETTLEMENTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-755-FtM-38CM

CENTURION ISG (EUROPE)
LIMITED,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff, TFG Life Settlements, LLC's
Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery, for a Ruling upon Its Pending Emergency Motion for
Injunctive Relief, and for a Discovery and Revised Briefing Schedule (Doc. #27) filed on
December 21, 2015. The Defendant, Centurion filed its Response in Opposition (Doc.
#33) on January 4, 2016. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for the Court’s review.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2015, the Court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO)
preventing the Defendant from selling the life insurance policies at issue in this case to a
third party buyer. Centurion Europe and Centurion U.S. moved the Court to dismiss the
case due to lack of diversity jurisdiction. A hearing was held on the issue of the Court’s

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

diversity jurisdiction on December 16, 2016. At the hearing, Counsel for Plaintiff conceded
that Centurion U.S. was a citizen of Florida and as long as it was a party the Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction.

Based upon the testimony and evidence from the hearing, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction, dissolved the TRO, and allowed the
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Without the TRO preventing the sale of the
insurance policies, Centurion Europe sold them to a third party buyer. Subsequently, the
Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a new preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint against Centurion Europe on December 16,
2016. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a brief as to why it has jurisdiction over this
case. In response to the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff moves the Court for jurisdictional
discovery.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Eleventh Circuit recognizes a qualified right to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
Eaton v. Dorchester Development, Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729 (11th Cir. 1982) (“jurisdictional
discovery is not entirely discretionary . . . a court does not have discretion to grant or deny
a request for jurisdictional discovery [when jurisdictional facts are in dispute]). Rather, it
is appropriate to speak in terms of a qualified ‘right’ to jurisdictional discovery when a
court’s jurisdiction is genuinely in dispute.” See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978). Specifically, “[i]f the jurisdictional question is genuinely in
dispute and the court cannot resolve the issue in the early stages of the litigation . . . ,
then discovery will certainly be useful and may be essential to the revelation of facts
necessary to decide the issue.” Eaton, 692 F.2d at 730 n.7; see also Chudasama v.
Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (a motion to dismiss for lack of

2

personal jurisdiction may require limited discovery so that a meaningful ruling can be
made); Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Community Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir.
1984) (“[a]lthough the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the court’s jurisdiction, the
plaintiff should be given the opportunity to discover facts that would support his
allegations of jurisdiction”). As the above precedent reflects, jurisdictional discovery is
favored where there is a genuine dispute concerning jurisdictional facts necessary to
decide the question of personal jurisdiction; it is not an unconditional right that permits a
plaintiff to seek facts that would ultimately not support a showing of personal jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks jurisdictional discovery arguing that it is necessary to resolve
Centurion Europe’s conflicting claims regarding its principal place of business. Centurion
Europe contends that its nerve center and principal place of business is in Boca Raton,
Florida. As such, Centurion Europe argues there is no diversity jurisdiction and the case
must be dismissed.
The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that “a corporation shall be
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 business.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80, 130
S. Ct. 1181, 1185, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)).

A

corporation’s principal place of business has been defined as the nerve center. Id. As
articulated in Hertz, the “nerve center” of a corporation refers to “the place where a
corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities.” Licari v.
Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 8:12-CV-2853-T-33EAJ, 2013 WL 268688, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
24, 2013) (citing Hertz, 559 U.S. at 90-91). The nerve center is “normally ... the place

3

where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the
actual center of direction, control, and coordination, . . and not simply an office where the
corporation holds its board meetings.” Id.
Centurion Europe avers that no diversity exists in this case because its nerve
center is located in Boca Raton, Florida. Therefore, Centurion Europe argues it is a
citizen of Florida for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiff argues that
Centurion Europe’s principal place of business is in Ireland. Since it is disputed where
Centurion Europe actually has its principal place of business or nerve center—Florida or
Ireland—good cause exists for the Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Plaintiff, TFG Life Settlements, LLC's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery, for
a Ruling Upon Its Pending Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief, and for a Discovery
and Revised Briefing Schedule (Doc. #27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


The Plaintiff will have up to and including May 5, 2016, to complete
jurisdictional discovery.



Plaintiff’s brief on diversity jurisdiction is due on or before May 20, 2016.



Defendant’s response is due on or before June 7, 2016.



The Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 8th day of April, 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4