Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00444/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17-CV-0444 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORDSTROM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

REPUBLIC OF FRENDS, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-0444 W (MDD)

ORDER AUTHORIZING LIMITED 

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Nordstrom, Inc. (“Nordstrom”) filed this action on March 6, 2017, 

invoking the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

(Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 9.)

On March 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this 

action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (OSC [Doc. 3].) 

As discussed in the OSC, “Nordstrom does not allege facts from which the Court may 

infer the citizenship of Defendant Family of Frends, LLC.” (Id. [Doc. 3] 2:11–16.) 

Instead, the Complaint merely alleges that “Nordstrom is informed and believes that 

Family is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

New York, New York . . . . Nordstrom is informed and believes that none of the members 

of Family are citizens of Washington.” (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 3.)

//

Case 3:17-cv-00444-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-CV-0444 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nordstrom responded to the OSC on March 22, 2017. (OSC Response [Doc. 4].) 

The OSC response details a diligent search for the members of Defendant Family of 

Frends LLC (“Family”) on the part of Nordstrom, which was ultimately unsuccessful. 

(See id. [Doc. 4] 2:1–17.) This search included contacting Family’s registered agent for 

service of process, named in its certificate of formation filed with the Delaware Secretary 

of State. This agent, named National Corporate Research Ltd., “refused to identify the 

members of the LLC.” (Id.) 

Jurisdictional “[d]iscovery should ordinarily be granted where ‘pertinent facts 

bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory 

showing of the facts is necessary.’ ” Butcher's Union Local No. 498, United Food & 

Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Data 

Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977). 

“[D]iscovery [related to subject matter jurisdiction] should be granted when . . . the 

jurisdictional facts are contested or more facts are needed.” Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, more facts are needed to establish the citizenship of Defendant Family. 

Jurisdictional discovery is appropriate under the circumstances. Nordstrom identifies six 

proposed interrogatories that it seeks to serve on Family. (See OSC Response [Doc. 4] 

4:4–19.) The first five1are as follows:

1) Identify all members of Family of Frends, LLC on the date of the filing of the 

Original Complaint;

 

1 The sixth, which reads “[f]or each member identified in these interrogatories, provide the street address 

you use to communicate with each one[,]” would not appear necessary to confirm the existence of 

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

As Nordstrom does not demonstrate how this information relates to the issue at hand, it is not authorized 

to serve this interrogatory on Defendant Family at this time.

Case 3:17-cv-00444-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-CV-0444 W (MDD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2) For each individual identified in the immediately preceding interrogatory, 

provide the state where that person was domiciled on the date of the filing of 

the Original Complaint, i.e., the place the person resided with the intent to 

remain;

3) For each corporation identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, provide the 

state of its incorporation and its principal place of business on the date of the 

filing of the Original Complaint;

4) For each partnership identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 state the 

domicile of each partner on the date of the filing of the Original Complaint;

5) For each limited liability company, identified in response to Interrogatory No. 

1, state the domicile, state of incorporation, and principal place of business of 

each member on the date of the filing of the Original Complaint;

(OSC Response [Doc. 4] 4:4–19.)

Good cause appearing, Nordstrom is hereby authorized to serve the foregoing five 

interrogatories on Defendant Family. Upon conclusion of the foregoing discovery, 

Nordstrom shall timely amend its OSC response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00444-W-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3