Niemann v. Carlsen, 4:22-cv-01110

Niemann sued Carlsen and others, asserting a federal Sherman Act claim (Count III) and several state-law claims; alternatively alleged diversity jurisdiction.
Chess.com LLC’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of its (multi-layered) members; Niemann alleged on information and belief none of Chess.com’s members are Connecticut citizens.
The Court observed Chess.com’s membership structure included multiple LLCs/LPs and potentially thousands of members/partners; no party had inspected member citizenships.
On Jan. 3, 2023 the Court concluded Niemann’s “information and belief” was insufficient to establish diversity and proceeded under federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction only.
Niemann moved for jurisdictional discovery into Chess.com’s members’ citizenship (or alternatively for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Chess.com opposed as unnecessary, burdensome, and procedurally defective.
The Court granted limited jurisdictional discovery (90 days) finding Niemann more than speculative (noting K-1 forms could disclose member residences) and denied certification for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jurisdictional discovery into Chess.com’s members’ citizenship should be permitted	Discovery likely to reveal members’ residences and support diversity jurisdiction; public records show no CT connection	Unnecessary because court already exercises federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction; burdensome/impracticable given complex, large membership; procedural meet-and-confer failure	Granted — plaintiff offered more than speculation; K-1s provide a practicable means to identify members’ domiciles; burden not dispositive; 90-day discovery window
Whether the Court should certify its prior order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)	Requests amendment to permit interlocutory appeal on controlling legal question(s)	Certification unwarranted; not exceptional; appeal would not materially advance termination	Denied — plaintiff failed to satisfy § 1292(b) requirements (especially that appeal would materially advance termination); prior collateral-order appeal dismissed

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (discovery available to ascertain facts bearing on jurisdiction or venue)
Lakin v. Prudential Securities, Inc., 348 F.3d 704 (district court has discretion to permit or deny jurisdictional discovery)
Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589 (jurisdictional discovery justified when it would likely reveal facts necessary to support jurisdiction)
Pudlowski v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, 829 F.3d 963 (when jurisdictional dispute concerns domicile, discovery may be warranted)
Starkey v. Amber Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 758 (when federal claims are dismissed, factors typically favor declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims)
White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374 (standards and heavy burden for certification under § 1292(b))