Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc. et al v. Kyocera Mita Corporation, a Japan corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER DEFERRING MOTIONS TO DISMISS 7 , 12 AND GRANTING JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery as to Defendants KDS and KDT. Discovery shall be limited to information directly relevant to the extent of KDS and KDTs contacts with California and the nature of their relationships with Kyocera America. Plaintiffs shall file one supplemental brief as to both KDS and KDT by November 8, 2015. KDS and KDT may file a joint response by November 16, 2015. Each brief shall not exceed 10 pages. The Court will issue a ruling on KDS and KTDs Motions to Dismiss thereafter. (lc). Modified on 9/25/2015 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE
USA, INC.; MITSUI SUMITOMO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KYOCERA MITA CORPORATION;
KYOCERA DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS,
INC.; KYOCERA DOCUMENT
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
SHINDENGEN ELECTRIC
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.;
and DOES 1-40, inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-01860-ODW-FFM
ORDER DEFERRING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS [7, 12] AND GRANTING
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

21

Presently before the Court are separate Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

22

Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) by Defendants

23

Kyocera Document Solutions, Inc. (“KDS”) and Kyocera Document Technology Co.,

24

Ltd. (“KDT” and collectively “Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 7, 12.) The Motions are

25

fully briefed. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court elects to defer

26

ruling on these two Motions pending the completion of limited jurisdictional

27

discovery.1

28

1

This Order has no effect on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Company,
Ltd. (ECF No. 18.)

1

In circumstances “where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction

2

are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary” to

3

make a fully-informed decision on the issue of personal jurisdiction, a court may grant

4

jurisdictional discovery. Borschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008).

5

Without this discovery, the court lacks sufficient information to make an informed

6

decision on personal jurisdiction. See Seedman v. Cochlear Ams. No. SACV 15-

7

00366 JVS (JCGx), 2015 WL 4768239, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (noting that

8

limited jurisdictional discovery “could establish specific jurisdiction”).

9

The parties raise strong arguments in support of their positions on the question

10

whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over KDS and KDT. The Court

11

concludes, however, that the factual record is not sufficiently developed to properly

12

decide the issue. It appears that Plaintiffs are limited to KDS’ publicly-available

13

website to make their arguments in support of personal jurisdiction. (See, e.g., KDS

14

Opp’n 4–5.) Similarly, the primary documents cited by Plaintiffs to support the

15

exercise of personal jurisdiction over KDT are Operation Guides for the copier at

16

issue. (See KDT Opp’n 9–10.) This documentation provides insufficient information

17

regarding the connections between KDS and California and KDT and California. The

18

Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery could yield additional facts about

19

Defendants’ relationship with California that may be conclusive as to issues of

20

personal jurisdiction.

21

The Court disagrees with KDS and KDT that discovery must be limited to

22

evidence in possession of Kyocera Document Solutions America, Inc. (“Kyocera

23

America”). KDT argues that it has “no ownership interest in Kyocera America” and

24

that it is best described as a “half-brother” to Kyocera America. (KDT Mot. 3.) KDT

25

then claims that “Plaintiffs have not identified any information they need to establish

26

personal jurisdiction over [KDT] that cannot be obtained from Kyocera America.”

27
28

2

1

(KDT Reply 10.) KDS makes similar contradictory arguments in its papers. (See

2

KDS Mot. 7; KDS Reply 9.) It seems that Defendants want to have their cake and eat

3

it, too, by simultaneously having very little connection to Kyocera America but

4

somehow possessing no additional applicable information than that in possession of

5

Kyocera America.

6

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to conduct limited

7

jurisdictional discovery as to Defendants KDS and KDT. Discovery shall be limited

8

to information directly relevant to the extent of KDS’ and KDT’s contacts with

9

California and the nature of their relationships with Kyocera America. Plaintiffs shall

10

file one supplemental brief as to both KDS and KDT by November 8, 2015. KDS

11

and KDT may file a joint response by November 16, 2015. Each brief shall not

12

exceed 10 pages. The Court will issue a ruling on KDS’ and KTD’s Motions to

13

Dismiss thereafter.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

September 25, 2015

18
19
20

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3