Jensen v. Evolve Skateboards PTY LTD ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMMI JENSEN, et. al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00110-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY ON 13 v. JURISDICTION-RELATED DISCOVERY 14 EVOLVE SKATEBOARDS PTY LTD, (Doc. No. 43) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 30, 2021, the District Court sua sponte entered an Order Dismissing Complaint 18 and Cross-Complaint for lack of Subject matter Jurisdiction, With Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 19 38). The Court noted it would hold the motion to dismiss in abeyance until the pleadings in this 20 action are settled. (Id. at 2). On July 13, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21 No. 41). On August 3, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Defendant Evolve 22 Skateboards Pty Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 43). Therein, the parties jointly move for 23 permission to engage in preliminary jurisdictional discovery and request the District Court to 24 defer ruling on the Defendant Evolve Skateboards pending motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2). The 25 parties agree to conduct limited discovery, for sixty days, directed at establishing the citizenship, 26 residency, and domicile of Mr. Alexander Bieker, one of the two alleged owners and managers of 27 Evolve Sports Group. (Id.). 28 Courts have discretion in deciding whether to grant a plaintiff leave to conduct 1 || jurisdictional discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. Spearman v. I Play, Inc., Case No. 2 || 2:17-cv-01563-TLN-KJN, 2018 WL 3770052 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018) (citing Barantesevich 3 | v. VTB Bank, 954 F.Supp. 972, 996 (2013)). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the district courts 4 | should ordinarily grant a motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery where ““‘pertinent facts 5 | bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of 6 | facts is necessary. .. However, ‘[w]here a Plaintiffs claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be 7 | both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by defendants, 8 || the Court need not permit even limited discovery.” /d. (internal citations omitted). 9 The parties agree that subject-matter jurisdiction is contested and that a “more thorough 10 | showing of Evolve Sport Group’s domicile and citizenship is needed.” (Doc. No. 43 at 3). The 11 | parties agree to conduct jurisdictional discovery not to exceed sixty days consisting of written 12 | interrogatories and requests for admissions. (/d. at 2). 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 The parties’ incorporated joint motion for limited jurisdictional discovery contained in 15 | their Joint Status Report (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED and the limited jurisdictional discovery 16 | shall be completed within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Order. The undersigned defers to 17 | the District Court whether to stay its ruling on the motion to dismiss during the period of 18 || discovery. 19 | Dated: _ August 10, 2021 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Jacki 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28