Collins et al v. Oklahoma Baptist University

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery as set forth herein. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 1-9) is STAYED and HELD IN ABEYANCE pending conclusion of the parties' jurisdictional discovery and further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 03/05/2025. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KARLIE ANN COLLINS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE OKLAHOMA BAPTIST
UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-24-234-G

ORDER
Plaintiff Karlie Ann Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, initially filed this action against Defendant The Oklahoma Baptist University in
the District Court of Pottawatomie County, bringing claims arising from a 2023 data
breach. See Class Action Pet. (Doc. No. 1-2). Defendant removed the case to this Court
and has moved to dismiss, see Doc. Nos. 1-9, 14.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No.
11). Defendant has responded in opposition (Doc. No. 12), and Plaintiff has replied (Doc.
No. 13).
The Tenth Circuit has instructed that a district court should permit jurisdictional
discovery “if either the pertinent jurisdictional facts are controverted or a more satisfactory
showing of the facts is necessary.” Health Grades, Inc. v. Decatur Mem’l Hosp., 190 F.
App’x 586, 589 (10th Cir. 2006). “The burden of demonstrating a legal entitlement to
jurisdictional discovery—and the related prejudice flowing from the discovery’s denial—

is on the party seeking the discovery.” Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., 490 F. App’x
86, 103 (10th Cir. 2012) (alterations, omission, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendant’s removal to federal court was premised upon the applicability of the
Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Notice of Removal at 3.
“Under CAFA, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over class actions
involving [1] at least 100 members and [2] over $5 million in controversy when [3] minimal
diversity is met (between at least one defendant and one plaintiff-class member).”
Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d 1183, 1190 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Plaintiff argues that removal was improper because the “home state exception”
to CAFA jurisdiction applies.

Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B).

This exception

prescribes that the federal court “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction” where “two-thirds
or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary
defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(4)(B). “[T]he home state exception requires remand if the plaintiffs can meet
all of the statutory requirements.” Dutcher, 840 F.3d at 1193.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
shown an entitlement to the requested discovery. Plaintiff has sufficiently identified
controverted “pertinent jurisdictional facts” regarding the citizenship of the proposed
plaintiff class. Health Grades, 190 F. App’x at 589. Plaintiff wishes to serve specific
and limited discovery—e.g., a request for Defendant’s “mailing address for all individuals
that were impacted by the data breach”—in order to determine whether “more than 2/3 of
the individuals impacted” by the data breach used an Oklahoma address. Pl.’s Mot. at 4.
2

Although Defendant objects to such discovery on the basis that “a mailing address is not a
guarantee of residence, and residence is not a guarantee of citizenship,” Plaintiff has
adequately established that such “addresses can serve as evidence of residence, and
residence in turn as evidence of domicile.” Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc. No. 19-cv01037, 2019 WL 4942054, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019). Plaintiff’s requested discovery
is reasonably likely to assist the Court is determining whether, assuming jurisdiction
otherwise lies, “it should abstain from exercising that jurisdiction pursuant to a CAFA
exception.” Potts v. Westside Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, No. CIV-21-502-D, 2021 WL
4129626, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 9, 2021) (citing cases).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No.
11) is GRANTED.
The parties may engage in jurisdictional discovery limited to the potential
applicability of the 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(B) home state exception to this action. All
discovery on this issue shall be completed within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff may submit a supplemental brief or motion within 14 days after discovery is
concluded.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 1-9) is
STAYED and HELD IN ABEYANCE pending conclusion of the parties’ jurisdictional
discovery and further order of the Court.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2025.

4