Jensen v. Evolve Skateboards PTY LTD

Opinion

TAMMI JENSEN, et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00110-NONE-HBK Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY ON v. JURISDICTION-RELATED DISCOVERY EVOLVE SKATEBOARDS PTY LTD, (Doc. No. 43) Defendant. On June 30, 2021, the District Court sua sponte entered an Order Dismissing Complaint and Cross-Complaint for lack of Subject matter Jurisdiction, With Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 38). The Court noted it would hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance until the pleadings in this action are settled. (Id. at 2). On July 13, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 41). On August 3, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Defendant Evolve Skateboards Pty Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 43). Therein, the parties jointly move for permission to engage in preliminary jurisdictional discovery and request the District Court to defer ruling on the Defendant Evolve Skateboards pending motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2). The parties agree to conduct limited discovery, for sixty days, directed at establishing the citizenship, residency, and domicile of Mr. Alexander Bieker, one of the two alleged owners and managers of Evolve Sports Group. (Id.). Courts have discretion in deciding whether to grant a plaintiff leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. Spearman v. I Play, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01563-TLN-KJN, 2018 WL 3770052 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018) (citing Barantesevich v. VTB Bank, 954 F.Supp. 972, 996 (2013)). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the district courts should ordinarily grant a motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery where ““‘pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of facts is necessary. .. However, ‘[w]here a Plaintiffs claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by defendants, the Court need not permit even limited discovery.” /d. (internal citations omitted). The parties agree that subject-matter jurisdiction is contested and that a “more thorough showing of Evolve Sport Group’s domicile and citizenship is needed.” (Doc. No. 43 at 3). The parties agree to conduct jurisdictional discovery not to exceed sixty days consisting of written interrogatories and requests for admissions. (/d. at 2). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: The parties’ incorporated joint motion for limited jurisdictional discovery contained in their Joint Status Report (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED and the limited jurisdictional discovery shall be completed within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Order. The undersigned defers to the District Court whether to stay its ruling on the motion to dismiss during the period of discovery. Dated: _ August 10, 2021 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Jacki HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE