Southern Filter Media, LLC v. Halter Financial Group, LP

Filing 5

ORDER re: 4 Motion for limited jurisdictional discovery, or, in the alternative, motion for status conference regarding the citizenship of Halter Financial Group, LP. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on 8/14/12. The motion is GRANTED only to the extent that plaintiff has an additional 45 days to amend its complaint in accordance with the court's prior order. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. (DCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SOUTHERN FILTER MEDIA, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 12-355-BAJ-DLD

HALTER FINANCIAL GROUP, LP.

ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for limited jurisdictional discovery,
or, in the alternative, motion for status conference regarding the citizenship of Halter
Financial Group, LP. (rec.doc. 4)
Background
On June 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against defendant in
federal court, based on this court's diversity jurisdiction. (rec.doc. 1) As plaintiff is aware,
it is axiomatic that the party seeking to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction must
“distinctively and affirmatively allege” each party's citizenship and these allegations must
show that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, i.e., the parties are
completely diverse. Whitmire v. Victus Ltd., 212 F.3d 885, 887 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly,
there is a presumption against subject matter jurisdiction that must be rebutted by the party
bringing the action in federal court. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir.1984); 1 J. Moore, Moore's
Federal Practice S 0.71[5.–1] (1996)).
The court, sua sponte noting the potential insufficiency of plaintiff's allegations of
citizenship pertaining to the general and limited partners of defendant, issued an order
allowing plaintiff until August 10, 2012, to file an amended complaint which properly set
forth the identity and citizenship of the various entities which comprised defendant's limited
partnership. (rec.doc. 3) In lieu of filing the amended complaint, however, plaintiff filed the
instant motion, requesting that it be allowed either limited jurisdictional discovery to
ascertain the identity and citizenship of the various entities, or an ex-parte status
conference with the court to “resolve all subject matter jurisdiction issues.” (Id.) In support

of its motion, plaintiff states that other courts have employed either limited discovery or a
status conference “to remedy similar issues.”
Although plaintiff cites to cases where limited jurisdictional discovery has been
allowed where defendants challenged factual allegations of citizenship or their legal import,
he provides no support for his novel request that he be allowed to file a case in federal
court invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction in name only, and thereafter seek the court’s
assistance in establishing the facts that may or may not actually establish jurisdiction. The
only resolution at this juncture is for plaintiff to correct the facial insufficiency of its
citizenship allegations, however difficult that may be, as plaintiff chose to file suit in a
federal forum on a state court claim and therefore is subject to the strict construction and
application of the diversity statute. To that end, the court will grant plaintiff's motion only
to the extent that plaintiff will be given an additional 45 days to amend its complaint in
accordance with the court's prior order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED only to the extent that plaintiff has an
additional 45 days to amend its complaint in accordance with the court's prior order. In all
other respects, the motion is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 14, 2012.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCIA L. DALBY

-2-