Hudgins v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC

Background

Bobbie Hudgins filed a proposed class action against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. She relied on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), which gives federal courts jurisdiction over qualifying class actions involving more than $5 million and minimal diversity. Minimal diversity requires at least one plaintiff and one defendant to be citizens of different states.

Hudgins alleged that she was a citizen of Florida. Her original complaint identified Radius Global as a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Minnesota, but it did not provide information about the citizenship of Radius Global’s members. For diversity purposes, a limited liability company’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of its members, not simply its place of business.

A previously assigned magistrate judge ordered Hudgins to amend her complaint to provide adequate jurisdictional allegations. Hudgins then moved for limited early discovery to determine the citizenship of Radius Global’s members and the states where Radius Global sent notices about the subject data breach. She also requested additional time to file her amended complaint.

Amended Complaint and Analysis

Hudgins filed an amended complaint before the court decided her motion. It alleged that Radius Global was a Minnesota limited liability company, that it was wholly owned through a chain of other limited liability companies, and that the ultimate parent had reported having 475 members. The amended complaint further alleged, on information and belief, that some members were citizens of Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, Florida, and Minnesota. It stated that detailed membership and citizenship information was exclusively in Radius Global’s possession.

The court explained that parties generally may not seek discovery before the required pretrial conference. Courts in the District of Minnesota apply a good-cause standard to requests for early discovery. Under that standard, the requesting party must show that the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.

The court concluded that the amended complaint adequately addressed the earlier jurisdictional deficiency for purposes of alleging the minimal diversity required by § 1332(d)(2)(A). Because the amended complaint was adequate at this stage, the court found no good cause for expedited jurisdictional discovery.

Disposition

The court denied Hudgins’s motion for limited jurisdictional discovery without prejudice as to the request for early jurisdictional discovery. It denied as moot the request for additional time to file an amended complaint because Hudgins had already filed the amended complaint. The order therefore denied the motion, with those specific qualifications. The opinion was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.