Rockwell Mining, LLC v. Pocahontas Land LLC, 2:20-cv-00487

Plaintiffs Rockwell Mining, LLC and Blackhawk Land and Resources, LLC (Delaware LLCs) sued Pocahontas Land LLC, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiffs alleged they are Delaware LLCs with out-of‑U.S. ultimate member; they alleged the defendant is a Virginia LLC and that none of its members are citizens of Delaware or foreign states.
Defendant filed an answer denying key citizenship allegations and filed counterclaims; its pleadings were unclear on whether its members shared plaintiffs’ citizenship.
Plaintiffs filed an answer to the counterclaims and a motion asking the court to order the defendant to "clarify its ownership" so diversity could be confirmed.
Defendant did not timely respond to the motion but filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 disclosure showing the defendant’s ultimate members are citizens of Texas, New York, Connecticut, and California.
The court held the motion to clarify under Rule 12(e) was untimely; it declined to order preliminary discovery because the Rule 7.1 disclosure cured the jurisdictional ambiguity and the record sufficed to exercise diversity jurisdiction; the motion was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle and timeliness of motion to clarify (Rule 12(e))	Motion sought a court order directing defendant to clarify ownership so diversity may be confirmed	Motion was filed after answer to counterclaim; Rule 12(e) must be filed before responsive pleading	Motion under Rule 12(e) is untimely and inappropriate and therefore denied
Whether court should order preliminary discovery into members' citizenship	Ambiguity in defendant’s pleadings justifies court-ordered clarification/discovery	Defendant’s later Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies members’ citizenship; normal discovery remains available	Court refused to order preliminary discovery; discovery is available in ordinary course
Whether the record supports exercise of diversity jurisdiction now	Plaintiffs contend ambiguity leaves subject-matter jurisdiction in doubt	Defendant’s Rule 7.1 disclosure clarifies members’ citizenship and shows no overlap with plaintiffs	Record is sufficient for court to exercise diversity jurisdiction; motion denied

Cent. W. Va. Energy Co. v. Mountain State Carbon, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 101 (4th Cir. 2011) (LLC citizenship determined by citizenship of all members for diversity purposes)
Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, L.P., 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (same principle regarding LLC citizenship)
Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 1999) (burden on party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction)
Passport Health, LLC v. Avance Health Sys., Inc., [citation="823 F. App'x 141"] (4th Cir. 2020) (court must dismiss when record fails to inform court of parties’ citizenship)
Clephas v. Fagelson, Shonberger, Payne & Arthur, 719 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1983) (same)
Jaffe-Spindler Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 747 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1984) (defective jurisdictional allegations may be cured by later representations to the court)