Mary Cooper v. Glen Oaks Healthcare LLC ( 2023 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0027n.06
Case No. 22-5570
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Jan 12, 2023
)
MARY ELIZABETH COOPER, DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
GLEN OAKS HEALTHCARE LLC, dba ) TENNESSEE
Viviant Healthcare of Shelbyville, fka Glen )
Oaks Health and Rehabilitation; and VIVIANT ) OPINION
CARE MANAGEMENT LLC, )
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Without adequate explanation or addressing a pending discovery
motion, the district court dismissed this case for lack of diversity jurisdiction. We vacate and
remand.
After she sustained an injury while in their care, Mary Elizabeth Cooper sued Glen Oaks
Healthcare LLC (“Glen Oaks”) and Viviant Care Management in federal court. Invoking diversity
jurisdiction, Cooper alleged that she is a Tennessee citizen and that both defendants are citizens of
New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendants challenged Cooper’s citizenship allegations. As a limited liability company
(“LLC”), Glen Oaks shares the citizenship of its members and sub-members. Akno 1010 Mkt. St.
Case No. 22-5570, Cooper v. Glen Oaks Healthcare LLC, et al.
St. Louis Mo. LLC v. Pourtaghi, 43 F.4th 624, 626 (6th Cir. 2022). Cooper alleged that Glen
Oaks’s sole member is Samuel Goldner, a citizen of New York. However, defendants contended
that Glen Oaks’s sole member is BTGO Healthcare Holdings, LLC (“BTGO”). And BTGO, they
say, is a citizen of Tennessee because one of its members is a Tennessee citizen. Defendants
backed that assertion with two affidavits and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
Cooper opposed. Although she conceded that BTGO is a Tennessee citizen, Cooper
continued to argue that Samuel Goldner is Glen Oaks’s sole member and submitted paperwork
from the Tennessee Secretary of State supporting her claim. She also moved for jurisdictional
discovery. The district court held a hearing, declined to rule on the motions, and asked defendants
to submit additional documents. So defendants filed BTGO’s LLC Agreement and several papers
showing BTGO’s membership and a financial relationship between BTGO and Glen Oaks.
Shortly thereafter, the district court dismissed the suit in a one-page order. The order did not
address Cooper’s discovery motion or discuss her submissions.
The district court’s order is too brief to allow for appellate review. First, the order makes
no mention of the motion for jurisdictional discovery. District courts have discretion to decide
whether jurisdictional discovery is needed. Hohman v. Eadie, 894 F.3d 776, 781 (6th Cir. 2018).
But to receive deference, a district court still must explain its ruling. C.H. ex rel. Shields v. United
States, 818 F. App’x 481, 484 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding that a court abuses its discretion when it
denies jurisdictional discovery arbitrarily); see, e.g., Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 791 (6th
Cir. 2004) (A court abuses its discretion when it “fails to explain its reasoning adequately.”). For
example, courts may—and typically do—consider the likely usefulness of the requested discovery,
the moving party’s diligence, or the opposing party’s cooperativeness. See, e.g., C.H. ex rel.
-2-
Case No. 22-5570, Cooper v. Glen Oaks Healthcare LLC, et al.
Shields, 818 F. App’x at 484; Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir.
2010). Here, though, the district court failed to address the plaintiff’s motion at all.
Second, the order doesn’t adequately explain its rationale for dismissal. The record
contains a factual dispute about whether jurisdiction exists. Compare R. 24; R. 24-1, Pg. ID 267;
and R. 24-2, Pg. ID 274, with R. 25; R. 29; R. 31; and R. 34. When such a dispute exists, a district
court may weigh evidence and make factual findings. See Amburgey v. United States, 733 F.3d
633, 636 (6th Cir. 2013). But the district court made no findings, and if it weighed evidence, it
does not say. Instead, it merely dismissed the action without addressing Cooper’s submissions or
reconciling them with the defendants’ filings.
Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
-3-