1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-22780-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES

MARIE ROSENA GILLES-JEAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., et al. 

Defendants. 

___________________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 

This matter is before the Court on Dolphin Encounters Ltd.’s, (“Dolphin” or 

“Defendant”) Motion to Stay Jurisdictional Discovery. [D.E. 37]. Marie Rosena 

Gilles-Jean (“Ms. Gilles-Jean” or “Plaintiff”) filed a timely response to the Motion, 

[D.E. 38], to which Defendant replied. [D.E. 44]. Therefore, the Motion is now ripe 

for disposition.1 After careful consideration of the Motion, the pleadings, the relevant 

authorities, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 

I. ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Motion is not the typical motion to stay all discovery except for

jurisdictional discovery. Instead, Defendant’s Motion takes the somewhat unusual

posture of seeking to stay jurisdictional discovery on the basis that a motion to 

dismiss is currently pending before the Court. However, that motion to dismiss is 

1 On April 17, 2023, the Honorable Darrin P. Gayles referred all pre-trial 

non-dispositive and dispositive matters to the undersigned for disposition. [D.E. 51].

Case 1:22-cv-22780-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2023 Page 1 of 4
2

premised on a lack of jurisdiction argument. In other words, Defendant asks this 

Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims prior to giving Ms. Gilles-Jean an opportunity to 

obtain the limited information she may use to establish disputed jurisdictional facts.

Based on our review of the Amended Complaint and the factual allegations therein, 

such a drastic measure is unwarranted at this juncture.

Plaintiffs in federal court have a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery. See, 

e.g., Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729–31 (11th Cir. 1982) (“federal 

courts have the power to order, at their discretion, the discovery of facts necessary to 

ascertain their competency to entertain the merits.”). Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 

privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending 

action, . . . .” Discovery is not limited to the merits of a case, as it is available to 

ascertain the facts bearing on issues such as jurisdiction or venue. See Oppenheimer 

Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n. 13 (1978). Thus, “‘[a] plaintiff faced with 

a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is entitled to reasonable discovery, 

lest the defendant defeat the jurisdiction of a federal court by withholding 

information on its contacts with the forum.’” Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atofina Chems., 

Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting El–Fadl v. Cent. Bank of Jordan, 

75 F.3d 668, 676 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).

As noted in Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff served jurisdictional discovery 

requests directed at Dolphin shortly after filing her Amended Complaint.

[D.E. 37 ¶¶ 2–3]. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint and the allegations asserted therein

Case 1:22-cv-22780-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2023 Page 2 of 4
3

make a sufficient showing to justify Plaintiff’s entitlement to limited jurisdictional 

discovery. See [D.E. 15 ¶¶ 11–39, 59–66]. This conclusion finds ample support in the 

rulings of courts within the Eleventh Circuit. See ACLU v. City of Sarasota, 859 F. 

3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted) (“[P]arties have a ‘qualified 

right to jurisdictional discovery,’ meaning that a district court abuses its discretion if 

it completely denies a party jurisdictional discovery, unless that party unduly delayed 

in propounding discovery or seeking leave to initiate discovery”); Chudsama v. Mazda 

Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Resolution of a pretrial motion 

that turns on findings of fact—for example, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)—may require some limited discovery 

before a meaningful ruling can be made.”); United Healthcare of Florida, Inc. v. 

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc., No. 16-81180-CIV-MARRA, 2016 WL 

8794534, *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2016) (“Eleventh Circuit precedent indicates that 

jurisdictional discovery is highly favored before resolving Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction.”) (collecting 

cases); Nutramedics, Inc. v. Blackstone Nutrition, Inc., No. 09-81458-CIV-MARRA, 

2009 WL 10668148, *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2009) (same); Gibson v. NCL Bahamas, No. 

11-24343-CIV, 2012 WL 1952670, *3 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2012) (allowing jurisdictional 

discovery because “[w]ithout jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff cannot refute the 

statements made in the affidavit submitted by Grupo Cacum’s legal representative 

concerning the corporation’s lack of contacts with Florida”); Commercial Indus. 

Americana v. Academy Roofing & Sheet Metal of Fla., Inc., No. 11-60774-CIVCase 1:22-cv-22780-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2023 Page 3 of 4
4 

ZLOCH, 2012 WL 13005796, *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2012) (“The Court has ample 

authority to permit jurisdictional discovery, particularly where a motion to dismiss 

for lack of personal jurisdiction has been filed.”).

In sum, foreclosing Plaintiff’s ability to engage in limited jurisdictional 

discovery as to Dolphin is not warranted in this case. Of course, Plaintiff’s discovery 

inquiries as to Dolphin shall be limited to relevant information necessary to establish 

the nature and extent of Dolphin’s contacts with the state of Florida. To the extent 

that Defendant has valid concerns regarding the allegedly overbroad or unduly 

burdensome nature of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the Parties are free to resort to 

our discovery disputes resolution procedures, where they will be afforded the 

opportunity to raise any timely and appropriate discovery objections they may have. 

See Standard Order Setting Discovery Procedures at

https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/content/chief-magistrate-judge-edwin-g-torres. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

Defendant’s Motion to Stay Jurisdictional Discovery pending resolution of dispositive 

motion [D.E. 37] is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of 

April, 2023. 

/s/ Edwin G. Torres 

 EDWIN G. TORRES

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22780-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2023 Page 4 of 4