Wine Bottle Recycling LLC v. Niagra Systems LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying 35 Ex Parte Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery filed by Wine Bottle Recycling LLC. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 1/11/2013. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
WINE BOTTLE RECYCLING LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
NIAGRA SYSTEMS LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-01924-SC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
EX PARTE MOTION FOR
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

16
17

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Wine Bottle Recycling LLC's

18

("Plaintiff") ex parte motion for jurisdictional discovery.

19

No. 35 ("Ex Parte Mot.").

20

of clarity.

21

jurisdictional discovery and otherwise fails to enunciate the

22

standard for granting or denying a motion for such discovery.

23

Indeed, Plaintiff's entire legal argument appears to boil down to

24

the circular and conclusory contention that Plaintiff is entitled

25

to jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff has requested it.

26

See Ex Parte Mot. at 5-6.

27
28

ECF

The Ex Parte Motion is far from a model

Plaintiff does not cite to case law concerning

Requests for jurisdictional discovery should normally be
granted where "pertinent facts bearing on the question of

1

jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing

2

of the facts is necessary."

3

Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotations omitted).

4

On the other hand, "[w]here a plaintiff's claim of personal

5

jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare

6

allegations in the face of specific denials made by defendants, the

7

Court need not permit even limited discovery . . . ."

8

Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995).

Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC

Terracom v.

United States District Court

In this case, it is unclear whether pertinent facts are

10
For the Northern District of California

9

controverted, whether a more satisfactory showing is necessary, or

11

what Plaintiff needs to obtain from jurisdictional discovery.

12

Further, since Plaintiff contends that it has already established

13

the prima facie showing of jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule

14

12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, Ex Parte Mot. at 2, 5, it is unclear

15

why jurisdictional discovery is necessary at all.

16

Manheim Cent. California, 1:10-CV-01511-SKO, 2011 WL 1466684, at *2

17

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) ("Where the court makes its determination

18

on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits, a plaintiff need only

19

make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction [to survive a Rule

20

12(b)(2) motion].").

21

See Martinez v.

The Ex Parte Motion is also procedurally improper.

Contrary

22

to Civil Local Rule 7-10, Plaintiff has failed to cite a statute,

23

Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order which would authorize

24

it to proceed ex parte.

25

would unnecessarily delay the adjudication of Defendants' motion to

26

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which has been pending

27

for almost six months.

Additionally, granting Plaintiff's motion

See ECF No. 12.

28

2

1

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for

2

jurisdictional discovery is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff

3

may again request jurisdictional discovery through its opposition

4

to Defendants' pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal

5

jurisdiction.

6

shall be made in a manner consistent with the guidance set forth in

7

this Order.

Any future requests for jurisdictional discovery

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: January 11, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3