AppTech Payments Corp. v. NCR Payment Solutions, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 APPTECH PAYMENTS CORP., Case No.: 22-CV-1889 TWR (WVG) a Wyoming corporation, 12 ORDER GRANTING (1) LIMITED Plaintiff, 13 JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, v. AND (2) JOINT MOTION FOR 14 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION NCR PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, 15 OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through TO COMPLAINT 16 10,

17 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 5, 6) 18

19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff AppTech Payments Corp.’s Response to Order 20 to Show Cause re Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Venue (“Resp.,” ECF No. 5) and the 21 Joint Motion for Order Granting Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Complaint 22 filed by Plaintiff and Defendant NCR Payment Solutions, LLC (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 6). 23 As for the Response, Plaintiff notes that “[i]ndependent efforts to obtain the 24 necessary information from filings in the State of Texas, where NCR LLC is registered, 25 have not prove successful in accurately identifying the citizenship of NCR LLC’s 26 members.” (See Resp. at 2.) “As a result, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant 27 leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to determine the citizenship of the 28 members of NCR LLC.” (See id.) 1 As Plaintiff notes, (see id.), “[j]urisdictional discovery ‘should ordinarily be granted 2 || where ‘pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a 3 ||more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.’” Digital Media Solutions, LLC v. 4 || Zeetgroup, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01184-JLS-AHG, 2022 WL 17419359 at *2 (S.D. Cal. 5 || Dec. 5, 2022) (quoting Butcher’s Union Loc. No. 498, United Food & Com. Workers v. 6 || SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)). Because “fa more satisfactory showing 7 || of the facts is necessary,” the Court concludes that limited jurisdictional discovery into the 8 || citizenship of NCR Payment Solutions, LLC’s owners/members is appropriate. The Court 9 || therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's request for limited jurisdictional discovery. Specifically, 10 || Defendant MAY FILE a declaration concerning the citizenship of Defendants members 11 ||and/or owners within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should 12 ||Defendant decline to file a declaration, Plaintiff MAY CONDUCT a single, remote 13 deposition of a corporate representative of Defendant that is limited to the citizenship of 14 Defendant’s members and/or owners within twenty-eight (28) days of the electronic 15 ||docketing of this Order. Within seven (7) days of obtaining the requisite discovery, 16 || Plaintiff SHALL FILE a further response to the Court’s December 5, 2022 Order to Show 17 || Cause concerning whether diversity of citizenship exists. 18 Regarding the Joint Motion, the Parties have stipulated to extend Defendant’s 19 deadline to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint “to give Defendant time to 20 analyze and prepare a response to” it. (See Joint Mot. at 1.) Good cause appearing, the 21 ||Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. As stipulated, Defendant SHALL RESPOND to the 22 || First Amended Complaint on or before January 14, 2023. 24 || Dated: January 9, 2023 [5 14 bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 27 28