UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________ ) ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. ) 18-10724-FDS v. ) ) NORTHLAND INVESTMENT CORP., ) CHURCH STREET NEWHAVEN, LLC, ) NORTHLAND FUND II LP,NORTHLAND ) FUND II PARTNERS, LLC,CINQUE ) GREENLIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and ) LAWRENCE R. GOTTESDIENER, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) ORDER SAYLOR, J. This is an action for declaratory judgment as to the obligations of plaintiff Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company under an insurance policy issued to defendant Northland Investment Corp. I. Background Plaintiff filed this action on April 13, 2018. On May 24, 2018, five defendants— Northland Investment Corp.; Church Street New Haven LLC; Northland Fund II, L.P.; Northland Fund II Partners LLC; and Lawrence R. Gottesdiener—moved to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdictionon the ground that there is not complete diversity of citizenship. They assert that Church Street New Haven LLC and Northland Fund II, L.P. both have members who are citizens of New York, which is plaintiff’s principal place of business. An amended complaint was filed on May30, 2018. Following that, the same five defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for the same reasons and attaching some additional exhibits. On June 8, 2018, plaintiff filed (1) a response to the original motion to dismiss,which also requested jurisdictional discovery, and (2)a response to the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, which complained that that it was filed without consultation as required by

Local Rule 7.1 andrequested that the Court strike it. II. Analysis The original motion to dismiss became moot uponthe filing of the amended complaint. It will therefore be denied. The motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction will remain pending. Jurisdictional discoveryof the kind plaintiff requests in its opposition would appear to be appropriate under the circumstances. See BRT Mgmt. LLC v. Malden Storage LLC,

(D. Mass. June 23, 2017). However,the parties are directed to meet and confer to determine whether such discoveryis required, or whether the necessary information (such as documents reflecting the members of LLCs or LPs and their citizenship)

can be produced voluntarily. Plaintiff shall have 14days from the date of this order toeither (1)file aseparate motion for jurisdictional discovery, which defendants may then oppose pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b); (2)file asupplemental opposition to the motion to the dismiss; or (3)voluntarily dismiss the action. The hearing set for July 12, 2018, will remain on the calendar. Defendants are further advised that they are required to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) and to consult with plaintiff prior to filing a motion for relief. Plaintiff is furtheradvised that all future requests for relief from this Court must be filed as a separate motion, and not containedin a responseto another motion. III. Conclusion Defendants’original motion to dismiss (Docket No. 19) is DENIED as moot. The parties are directedto meet and confer as to jurisdictional discovery issues. Plaintiff shall respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,in accordance with this order, within 14days.

So Ordered. /s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV F. Dennis Saylor, IV Dated: June 14, 2018 United States District Judge