Northfield Insurance Company v. GM Star Construction, Inc., 1:21-cv-01775

Plaintiff sued for a declaration of insurance obligations and alleged jurisdiction based on diversity.
One defendant was a limited liability company (Prince Street Investment Co., LLC); plaintiff alleged on information and belief that it was a New York LLC but did not identify any members or their citizenships.
The court issued an order to show cause because an LLC’s citizenship is the citizenship of each member and plaintiff’s pleading therefore failed to establish diversity.
Plaintiff asked for jurisdictional discovery to learn the LLC’s membership; defendants had not appeared to contest jurisdictional facts.
The court declined jurisdictional discovery, explaining that allowing fishing expeditions would invite speculative pleadings and a mini‑litigation on the threshold jurisdictional issue, and that federal question jurisprudence cited by plaintiff was inapposite to diversity jurisdiction.
Because diversity was not adequately alleged and discovery was denied, the case was dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of pleadings to establish diversity when a defendant is an LLC	Alleged the LLC was a New York entity and pleaded jurisdiction "upon information and belief"	No jurisdictional facts pleaded about members; defendants did not present contrary facts	Pleadings insufficient—an LLC’s citizenship is the citizenship of each member; plaintiff must identify members to invoke diversity
Whether to permit jurisdictional discovery to learn LLC members	Plaintiff sought discovery, saying it exhausted other means	Defendants did not contest because they had not appeared; court noted policy concerns against fishing	Denied—court exercised discretion to refuse discovery to avoid speculative, burdensome preliminary litigation and because plaintiff had no basis to believe diversity exists
Applicability of federal‑question discovery precedents (e.g., Gualandi) to diversity cases	Plaintiff relied on cases affording discovery on jurisdictional facts	N/A	Court held those precedents are inapplicable or distinguishable because they concern federal‑question jurisdiction, not diversity

Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2012) (an LLC’s citizenship = citizenship of each member)
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (court must address subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
Mills 2011 LLC v. Synovus Bank, 921 F. Supp. 2d 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (district courts have discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery)
Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 2004) (discusses discovery on jurisdictional facts in a federal‑question context)
Kamen v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006 (2d Cir. 1986) (jurisdictional discovery principles cited in Gualandi)