Court Opinion

ID: 9353777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 19:01:18.703837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:36.986473
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION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-