Liesman v. Weisberg

Filing 22

ORDER denying administratively without prejudice 14 Motion to Remand to State Court; granting 17 Motion for Discovery. Parties shall conduct limited jurisdictional discovery with a deadline of 5/2/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 3/1/18. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00660-MOC-DSC
ROBERT M. LIESMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMY F. WEISBERG,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand” (document #14),
Defendant’s “Motion to Conduct Discovery” (document #17), and the parties’ briefs and
submissions.
District Courts have broad discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery pursuant to Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 64 (4th Cir.
2003). The Court may order discovery directed at jurisdictional issues alone. See e.g., 360 Mortg.
Grp., LLC v. Stonegate Mortg. Corp., No. 5:14-CV-310-F, 2015 WL 2408273, at *1 (E.D.N.C.
May 20, 2015) (noting that after the case was removed “on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, …
the parties engaged in jurisdictional discovery”); Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. v. Century Coal,
LLC, Civ. A. No. 3:09CV398, 2011 WL 3682778, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2011) (granting
plaintiff’s motion to remand and stating that “Indiantown contends that Century’s Notice of
Removal and subsequent jurisdictional discovery fail to establish complete diversity”); Sun Yung
Lee v. Clarendon, 453 F. App’x 270, 273 (4th Cir. 2011) (observing that the parties engaged in
jurisdictional discovery prior to “consideration of Lee’s motion to remand”); see also SAS Institute

Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 2011 WL 1059139, *5-*7 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2011) (allowing
jurisdictional discovery and noting that such discovery should be allowed "unless plaintiff's claim
appears to be clearly frivolous") (quoting Rich v. KIS California, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254, 259
(M.D.N.C. 1988) (allowing jurisdictional discovery) and citing 4 J. MOORE, J. LUCAS & G.
GROTHER, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 26.56(6) (2d ed. 1987)); Howard Acquisitions,
LLC v. Giannasca New Orleans, LLC, 2010 WL 889551 at *7 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2010) (allowing
jurisdictional discovery).
Applying those legal principles, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to conduct
limited jurisdictional discovery as outlined below. The jurisdictional facts are disputed here, but
should be easily clarified through limited discovery.

Accordingly, the Court will grant

Defendant’s “Motion to Conduct Discovery” (document #17).

The Court will deny

administratively Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand” (document #14) without prejudice to its right to
renew the Motion following completion of jurisdictional discovery.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s “Motion to Conduct Discovery” (document #17) is GRANTED. The

parties shall conduct limited jurisdictional discovery with a deadline of May 2, 2018. Discovery
shall be confined to the issue of the amount in controversy.
2. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Remand” (document #14) is DENIED ADMINISTRATIVELY
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its right to renew the Motion following completion of jurisdictional
discovery.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties, including
but not limited to moving counsel; and to the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr..
SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 1, 2018