FABRICANT v. INTAMIN AMUSEMENT RIDES INT. CORP. EST., 3:19-cv-12900

Christopher Fabricant was injured on the Kingda Ka roller coaster at Six Flags Great Adventure in New Jersey; he and his wife (Plaintiffs) sued in New Jersey state court.
Defendant Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC (SFGA) removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs are New Jersey citizens; SFGA alleged it is an LLC whose sole member is Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. (SFTP), a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Texas.
Plaintiffs named John Does 1–20 (park employees) and argued those fictitious defendants likely are New Jersey citizens and thus defeat diversity.
Plaintiffs pointed to an earlier unrelated New Jersey case (Huzinec) in which SFGA described itself as a New Jersey LLC and argued SFGA should be judicially estopped from claiming Delaware/Texas citizenship here.
Plaintiffs sought jurisdictional discovery into (a) the identities/citizenship of the John Does, (b) SFTP’s principal place of business, and (c) whether SFGA is SFTP’s alter ego.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of John Doe defendants on diversity	John Doe employees likely NJ citizens; their citizenship should destroy diversity	John Does are fictitious; their citizenship is to be disregarded under §1441(b)(1)	Court: John Does are fictitious; their citizenship is disregarded and do not destroy jurisdiction
SFGA's citizenship	SFGA previously described itself as a NJ LLC; must be treated as NJ citizen	SFGA is an LLC whose sole member is SFTP (DE corp, PPB in TX), so SFGA is a citizen of DE and TX	Court: SFGA’s LLC citizenship follows its corporate member; SFGA is DE and TX (diverse from Plaintiffs)
Judicial estoppel based on Huzinec statements	SFGA’s prior statement in Huzinec that it was a NJ LLC bars its current position	Statements are not inconsistent and can coexist; no bad-faith intent to mislead	Court: Judicial estoppel inappropriate—no incompatible positions or bad faith
Jurisdictional discovery / alter ego claim	Plaintiffs seek discovery on John Doe identities, SFTP PPB, and alter ego relationship to defeat diversity	SFGA says no factual attack; provided affidavit of SFTP PPB; alter ego claim unsupported	Court: Denied discovery—Plaintiffs raised no factual challenge warranting jurisdictional discovery; alter ego theory unsupported

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (superseded on other grounds) (complete diversity requires each plaintiff be a citizen of a different state from each defendant)
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (LLC citizenship is determined by citizenship of its members)
Johnson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2013) (when an LLC has a corporate member, examine the member-corporation’s state of incorporation and principal place of business)
Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 1996) (judicial estoppel requires inconsistent positions and bad-faith intent)
Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (distinguishing facial and factual jurisdictional attacks; standards for jurisdictional discovery)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (deficient pleading under Rule 8 does not entitle plaintiff to discovery)
Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977) (procedural standards for factual attacks on jurisdiction)
Constitution Party v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014) (a factual attack must present competing facts, typically via answer or other evidence)