United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN
E. MARTIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Fed.R.Civ.P 26(f) Discovery Plan Setting and for Leave to
Issue Jurisdictional Discovery to Address Defendant, Tube
Fabrication & Color, LLC's, Pending 12(b)(2) Motion
to Dismiss [DE 21], filed December 7, 2018. Defendant Tube
Fabrication & Color, LLC, filed a response on January 11,
2019, and on January 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a reply.
On
September 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, bringing
claims against Defendants arising out of an injury allegedly
suffered by Plaintiff Roque Arellano when pipes loaded by
Defendant T and B Tube Company were unloaded by Defendant
Tube Fabrication & Color, LLC, and fell on him. On
December 3, 2018, Defendant Tube Fabrication filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On December 4, 2018,
District Court Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen ordered Plaintiffs
to amend their jurisdictional statement to identify each of
the LLC's members and their citizenship. On December 7,
2018, Plaintiffs filed a document in response to the
requirement, as well as the instant Motion. On December 17,
2018, the Court held a hearing and ordered that general
discovery is stayed until the issue of jurisdiction is
resolved, and set a briefing schedule for the instant Motion.
Plaintiffs
move for leave to take limited jurisdictional discovery from
Defendants to inform their response to the pending motion to
dismiss. Defendant Tube Fabrication & Color, LLC, argues
that discovery is not needed and that even if Plaintiffs
uncovered exactly the facts they are seeking through
discovery, it would not support their jurisdictional
argument.
Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the scope of discovery
is “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need
not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). To that end,
“[i]t is well established that a federal district court
has the power to require a defendant to respond to discovery
requests relevant to his or her motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.” Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc.,
179 F.R.D. 236, 241 (N.D. Ind. 1998) (quoting Ellis v.
Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 308, 311 (S.D.
Ind.1997)). However, that discovery is not automatic:
“[a]t a minimum, the plaintiff must establish a
colorable or prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction
before discovery should be permitted.” Cent.
States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Reimer Express
World Corp., 230 F.3d 934, 946 (7th Cir. 2000).
“‘Generally, courts grant jurisdictional
discovery if the plaintiff can show that the factual record
is at least ambiguous or unclear on the jurisdiction
issue.' But plaintiff may not rely on “bare,
” “attenuated, ” or “unsupported
assertions” of jurisdiction to justify
discovery.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Tangiers
Int'l LLC, No. 18 C 2115, 2018 WL 3770085, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018) (quoting Ticketreserve, Inc. v.
viagogo, Inc., 656 F.Supp.2d 775, 782 (N.D. Ill. 2009);
Mart v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc., No. 3:10-CV-118
JTM, 2010 WL 11575057, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 2, 2010) (citing
Andersen, 179 F.R.D. at 239); Gilman Opco LLC v.
Lanman Oil Co., No. 13-CV-7846, 2014 WL 1284499, at *7
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2014)).
Plaintiffs
are seeking information about the business done in Indiana by
Tube Fabrication to determine whether its operation in the
state meets the requirements for establishing jurisdiction.
Tube Fabrication argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish
facts that meet the criteria for showing that it had
continuous and systematic contacts with the state of Indiana
sufficient to meet the requirements of general jurisdiction.
It lays out the requirements of general and specific
jurisdiction and argues that since general jurisdiction is so
rarely found to exist, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs will be
able to uncover information in discovery that demonstrates it
in this case. Plaintiffs argue that their request is not
wholly unsupported. They point to an affidavit presented by
Defendants describing some business conducted by Tube
Fabrication in Indiana, and argue that they should be
permitted to do discovery regarding the extent of that
business to determine whether it meets the requirements for
establishing jurisdiction, rather than merely taking Tube
Fabrication's word that it does not. In addition, the
Court notes that there may still be some confusion regarding
Tube Fabrication's citizenship. The affidavit attached to
Plaintiffs' supplemental jurisdictional statement refers
to the “owner” of Tube Fabrication, and the
motion to dismiss refers to Tube Fabrication as a
“corporation” rather than an LLC and applies the
citizenship tests that apply to corporations. See Thomas
v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“[A]n LLC's jurisdictional statement must identify
the citizenship of each of its members as of the date the
complaint or notice of removal was filed, and, if those
members have members, the citizenship of those members as
well.”); Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Mkt.
Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir. 2003) (“A
limited liability company is analogous to a partnership and
takes the citizenship of its members.”). Accordingly,
the Court finds that it is appropriate to allow Plaintiffs
limited discovery into the question of jurisdiction,
including the business activities conducted by Tube
Fabrication in Indiana as well as the members of the LLC and
their citizenship.
For the
foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS
Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Fed.R.Civ.P 26(f) Discovery
Plan Setting and for Leave to Issue Jurisdictional Discovery
to Address Defendant, Tube Fabrication & Color,
LLC's, Pending 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss [DE 21] and
ORDERS Defendant Tube Fabrication &
Color, ...