Princeton Energy Inc. v. Grand Gulf Energy, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 13 Motion for Reconsideration re 7 Motion to Allow Jurisdictional Discovery as set forth in document. Deadline for defendants to respond to motion to remand is reset to 01/05/2015. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 12/2/2014. (kac) (Main Document 18 replaced on 12/4/2014) (kac).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PRINCETON ENERGY, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-1807

GRAND GULF ENERGY, INC.
and GG OIL & GAS I, INC.

SECTION: “C” (2)

ORDER
Before the Court is defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's previous denial
of defendants' Motion to allow Jurisdictional Discovery. Rec. Doc. 13. For the reasons discussed
herein, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion.
The procedure for determining issues of jurisdiction is within the discretion of the trial
court. Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson, 448 F.2d 658, 667 (5th Cir. 1971). In the
instant motion, defendants aver that although plaintiff, Princeton Energy, Inc. ("Princeton") states
that its principal place of business is in Texas, it has recently filed an application for registration
of a foreign for-profit corporation with the Texas Secretary of State that lists its principal office
as being located in Washington, D.C. Rec. Doc. 13-1 at 2. Defendants have attached a copy of
this application as an exhibit to the memorandum. Rec. Doc. 13-2. Other exhibits provided by the
defendants raise further questions about whether Princeton's corporate headquarters are in fact in
Houston, Texas, as Princeton claims. For instance, the mailing address listed in the records of the

Texas Office of the Comptroller is a Washington, D.C. address, and Princeton has designated an
agent for service of process in Austin, Texas, which suggests it may not have a permanent office
or employees in Texas. Rec. Doc. 13-2. Considering the parties' memoranda, the Court is
satisfied that limited discovery would be likely to uncover facts relevant to determining the
citizenship of plaintiff, Princeton Energy, Inc. ("Princeton").
Princeton argues that the Court should treat this motion to reconsider as a motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60, and that defendants have failed to show that Princeton
was not a Texas citizen on June 5, 2014, the date of the filing of this complaint. Rec. Doc. 14.
However, the Fifth Circuit has previously stated that "there is no statutory direction for procedure
upon an issue of jurisdiction" and therefore "the mode of its determination is left to the trial
court." Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson, 448 F.2d at 667. Furthermore, the documents
cited to by defendants date from before and after the filing of the complaint, raising doubt about
Princeton's citizenship at the time of filing. Thus, the Court finds that limited discovery will
clarify this issue and aid in its ruling on whether remand is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion
for reconsideration. Defendants may conduct limited discovery on the issue of the location of
Princeton's principal place of business.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for defendants to respond to the motion to

2

remand is reset to January 5, 2015 to allow time to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of December, 2014.

__________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3