Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Petrin, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

October 30, 2017

PETRIN, LLC
v.
DUN & BRADSTREET, INC. AND SUPPLIER

          ORDER

          ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court is a Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and for Extension of Time[1] (the “Motion”) filed by defendant, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (“D&B”). As set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED. D&B is granted an extension of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to comply with this court's October 23, 2017 Notice and Order.[2]

         On September 12, 2017, plaintiff, Petrin, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Petrin”) filed a Petition (the “Petition”) in state court against D&B and an unknown supplier.[3] Per the Petition, Plaintiff asserts claims of defamation and negligence against D&B.[4] On October 12, 2017, D&B removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.[5] However, and as set forth in the October 23, 2017 Notice and Order, D&B's allegations regarding the citizenship of Plaintiff are insufficient to establish this court's subject matter jurisdiction.[6] Moreover, it is not apparent from the face of Plaintiff's Petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75, 000.00.[7] Accordingly, on October 23, 2017, the court ordered D&B to file a Motion to Substitute the Notice of Removal (R. Doc. 1) with a comprehensive Notice of Removal that properly alleges the citizenship of Petrin, LLC on or before October 30, 2017. The court further ordered D&B to file a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning subject matter jurisdiction, specifically whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met, on or before November 2, 2017.

         On October 27, 2017, D&B filed the instant Motion.[8] Therein, D&B requests a 30-day extension of time to allow it to respond to the October 23, 2017 Notice and Order. D&B asserts that it has been “working to identify the members of Plaintiff, Petrin, LLC” and that counsel for D&B has been “traveling out of the country and is continuing to obtain additional evidence regarding the amount in controversy.”[9] Counsel for D&B represents that “the parties are in active settlement negotiations and an extension of time would further allow the parties to reach an amicable resolution of this matter.”[10] Finally, D&B asserts that “[c]ounsel for Plaintiff has been contacted and he has indicated that he has no objection to the extension.”[11]

         It is within the court's discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery. See, Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, n. 13 (1978) (explaining that discovery is not limited to the merits of a case, “[f]or example, where issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue, discovery is available to ascertain the facts bearing on such issues.”); Pudlowski v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, 829 F.3d 963, 964-965 (8th Cir. 2016) (“A court has an independent obligation to ensure that the case is properly before it. Discovery is often necessary because jurisdictional requirements rest on facts that can be disputed, for instance, the domicile of the parties.”); APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[A] court should take care to give the plaintiff ample opportunity to secure and present evidence relevant to the existence of jurisdiction…”) (internal citations omitted). See also, Lawson v. Chrysler, LLC, Civil Action No. 08-19, 2009 WL 961226, at * 3 (S.D.Miss. April 7, 2009) (noting that plaintiff attempted to discover defendant's citizenship by “issuing subpoenas to some of the non-party entities believed to be members of one of Chrysler LLC's members.”); Shreveport Group, LLC v. Zurich North American Ins. Co., No. Civ. A 06-0377, 2006 WL 1523203, at * 1 (W.D. La. May 19, 2006) (“Maryland Casualty is granted leave to conduct discovery, if necessary, to learn the identity and citizenship of the members of the LLC.”).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery and for Extension of Time[12] is GRANTED. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (“D&B”) is granted leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery solely for the purpose of determining: (1) the citizenship of Plaintiff, Petrin, LLC; and (2) the amount in controversy. D&B is granted leave to conduct this limited jurisdictional discovery for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Notice and Order.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon expiration of this thirty day limited jurisdictional discovery period and pursuant to this court's October 23, 2017 Notice and Order, D&B shall file a Motion to Substitute the Notice of Removal (R. Doc. 1) with a comprehensive Notice of Removal that properly alleges the citizenship of Petrin, LLC and shall separately file a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning subject matter jurisdiction, specifically whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file either: (1) a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning the court's subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met; or (2) a Motion to Remand, within ten (10) days after the filing of D&B's memorandum.

         The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.

---------

Notes:

[1] R. Doc. 5.

[2] R. Doc. 4.

[3] R. Doc. 1-4.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.