Authenticity Co. Ltd. v. Pacrep LLC, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC, et al.

Civil No. 24-00322 DKW-RT · United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i · June 25, 2026 · No. Civil No. 24-00322 DKW-RT

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i reopened discovery for the limited purpose of determining the identity and citizenship of the owners or members of PACREP LLC, including any entities in its ownership structure. The court required Authenticity Co. Ltd. to complete the jurisdictional discovery, supplement its response to the order to show cause, and explain why diversity jurisdiction exists. The court also vacated the summary judgment hearing and held other unexpired scheduling deadlines in abeyance.

Holdings

  1. Limited jurisdictional discovery was appropriate because the record lacked necessary information regarding PACREP's organizational structure and citizenship, and the requested discovery was not based merely on speculation.
  2. Authenticity may conduct discovery solely to ascertain the identity and citizenship of PACREP's owners or members, including the citizenship of any LLCs or partnerships within PACREP's ownership structure.
  3. If Authenticity fails to establish the citizenship of PACREP's relevant owners or members and explain why diversity exists, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether limited jurisdictional discovery should be permitted to determine the identity and citizenship of PACREP LLC's owners or members for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction.
  2. Whether discovery should be reopened after the discovery deadline for the limited jurisdictional purpose.
  3. What procedural consequences should follow if Plaintiff cannot establish complete diversity after the limited discovery.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • Butcher’s Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
  • Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 438 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Strotek Corp. v. Air Transp. Ass’n of Am., 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…