Harris v. Dimon et al
Filing
88
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/3/2015 ORDERING 74 plaintiff's motion, is GRANTED in PART; the parties shall meet and confer and file a revised plan no later than 3/20/2015; the court anticipates completed implementation of such plan, including resolution of any related discovery disputes, within 90 days of its approval; if after a good-faith effort the parties are unable to submit a joint plan, they shall file a joint report, to be filed by 3/20/2015, describing the nature of their disagreement, their efforts to resolve it, and their respective proposed plans.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
In re JPMORGAN CHASE DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION
13
No. 2:13-cv-02414-KJM-EFB
ORDER
14
Responding to the court’s order of October 24, 2014, the plaintiffs have submitted
15
16
a proposed plan of jurisdictional discovery. Mot. Approve Discovery Plan. (Mot.), ECF No. 74.
17
After considering the parties’ briefing, Defs.’ Opp’n Discovery Plan (Opp’n), ECF No. 78, Reply,
18
ECF No. 80, and arguments presented at the hearing,1 the court GRANTS the motion in part as
19
described below.
The court’s previous order dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of personal
20
21
jurisdiction. Order Oct. 24, 2014, ECF No. 69. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants
22
challenged personal jurisdiction on grounds that (1) none of the director defendants is a citizen or
23
resident of California; (2) the board of directors meets in New York, not California; (3) the
24
alleged issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) did not occur in California;
25
(4) the RMBS business was not focused on California; and (5) the actions the plaintiffs allege
26
27
28
1
Because the court held a hearing on this motion and heard arguments from all parties, and
granted defendants’ request to be represented by veteran counsel at hearing, it does not consider
the defendants’ proposed Sur-Reply. See ECF No. 83-1.
1
1
were wrongful were not directed at California. Mot. Dismiss 5–8, ECF No. 48. Any
2
jurisdictional discovery must be limited to countering these defenses and otherwise showing the
3
defendants are subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
4
The parties shall meet and confer and exhaust efforts to jointly propose a discovery
5
plan to be submitted to the court no later than March 20, 2015. The court establishes several
6
parameters for any proposed discovery plan:
7
Because plaintiffs have not previously established a colorable basis for general
8
personal jurisdiction, any discovery must be limited to facts directed to
9
establishing specific personal jurisdiction.2
10
Requests that reach beyond the plaintiffs’ RMBS theory are improper at this stage.
11
JPMorgan, the nominal defendant here, may possess information responsive to
12
appropriate inquiries into its directors’ RMBS-related contacts with California. If
13
a request otherwise conforms to the requirements of this order, the defendants may
14
not decline to respond for no other reason than that it is directed to JPMorgan
15
rather than the individual defendants.
16
In its previous order, this court agreed that a plaintiff may satisfy its burden by
17
alleging that “the defendants participated in the harmful plan and that each
18
obtained financial benefits for that participation.” Order Oct. 24, 2014, at 12, ECF
19
No. 69 (citing Openwave Systems Inc. v. Fuld, No. 08-5683, 2009 WL 1622164, at
20
*11–12 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2009)). In other words, the jurisdictional inquiry tests
21
whether the complaint’s allegations “support the conclusion that each defendant
22
participated in actions expressly directed at California, whether individually or as
23
part of a larger plan or strategy.” Id. at 14. The plaintiffs’ requests may seek
24
production of documents showing the directors either individually or as a part of a
25
larger plan or strategy took actions directed at California that gave rise to the harm
26
alleged in the complaint.
27
28
2
This limitation on jurisdictional discovery does not preclude the possibility of an amended
pleading asserting general jurisdiction, subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
2
1
The parties’ plan may propose the deposition of Anthony Horan, JPMorgan’s
2
Corporate Secretary, who submitted a declaration in support of defendants’ motion
3
to dismiss. See Horan Decl., ECF No. 49.
4
CONCLUSION
5
In summary, the court orders as follows:
6
(1) The plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 74, is GRANTED IN PART as set forth
7
8
9
10
11
above.
(2) The parties shall meet and confer and file a revised plan no later than March
20, 2015. The court anticipates completed implementation of such plan, including resolution of
any related discovery disputes, within ninety days of its approval.
(3) If after a good-faith effort the parties are unable to submit a joint plan, they
12
shall file a joint report, to be filed by March 20, 2015, describing the nature of their disagreement,
13
their efforts to resolve it, and their respective proposed plans.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2015.
16
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?