Arzuaga-Perello v. The Shell

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 98-1834 RAFAEL ARZUAGA-PERELLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. THE SHELL COMPANY (PUERTO RICO), ETC., Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] Before Stahl, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge. John E. Mudd and Melvin Rosario on brief for appellants. Ramon Coto-Ojeda, Armando Llorens and McConnell Valdes on brief for appellee. February 4, 1999 Per Curiam. Plaintiffs-appellants Rafael Arzuaga Perello and Beatriz de los Reyes appeal from the district court's dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). They concede that the affidavit submitted by defendant-appellee Shell Co. (Puerto Rico) Limited ("Shell") supports the district court's ruling that diversity of citizenship between the parties is lacking. Appellants argue, however, that the district court abused its discretion by not granting them additional time to conduct discovery so that they could disprove the factual allegations contained in the Shell affidavit. "It is well settled that the trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on pre-trial management matters and we review the district court's denial of discovery for abuse of its considerable discretion. 'We will intervene in such matters only upon a clear showing of manifest injustice, that is, where the lower court's discovery order was plainly wrong and resulted in substantial prejudice to the aggrieved party.'" Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 91 (1st Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). When faced with a 12(b)(1) motion, a district court "may allow discovery to be completed on the issue and a further hearing to be held before ruling on the motion." 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure 1350 (2d ed. 1990). "Where the defendant has challenged the plaintiff's assertion of federal jurisdiction under Rule -2- 12(b)(1), the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to present facts in support of his jurisdictional contention." Berrios v. Department of Army, 884 F.2d 28, 33 (1st Cir. 1989). Here, the district court gave appellants such an opportunity by granting their request for a thirty-day extension of time to oppose the motion to dismiss. Despite the extra time, appellants failed even to identify a theory under which the Shell affidavit could be attacked. Compare Madj-Pourv. Georgiana Community Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir. 1984)(reversing and remanding Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal where "[p]laintiff's counsel alleged that discovery would show that the two defendants are actually one entity operating out of the state of Indiana"). Appellants have failed to make "a clear showing of manifest injustice." Ayala-Gerena, 95 F.3d at 91. There was no abuse of the district court's broad discretion over discovery matters. The district court's Opinion and Order dated May 26, 1998, granting appellee's motion to dismiss is affirmed.