BMTP, LLC v. RBH, Inc et al

Filing 19

RULING and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall file an Opposition to the Defendants' Motion on or before Ma y 2, 2018. Granting 17 Motion for Briefing Schedule to Respond to Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose CMH defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery. Defendants shall file a Reply on or before May 11, 2018. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled to jurisdictional discovery. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/26/2018. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BMTP, LLC

Civil Action Number
18-CV-352-SDD-RLB

VERSUS
RBH, INC., CMH HOMES, INC.
CMH MANUFACTURING, INC.
CMH SERVICES, INC. and
NTA, INC.

RULING & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose
[Defendant’s] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction1 filed by Plaintiff, BMTP,
LLC. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to oppose Defendants’ motion and further
requests time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The Defendants oppose the extension
of time and the request for jurisdictional discovery. The Court will grant the motion in part
and deny the motion in part without prejudice.
Plaintiff contends it needs jurisdictional discovery to respond to Defendants’
motion. However, the law is clear that:
[i]n order to be entitled to jurisdictional discovery, a plaintiff must make a
preliminary showing of jurisdiction. Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415
F.3d 419, 429 (5th Cir. 2005). He must present “factual allegations that
suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite
contacts.” HEI Res., Inc. v. Venture Research Inst ., 2009 WL 2634858, at
*7 (N.D. Tex. Aug 26, 2009) (Lynn. J.) (citing Fielding, 415 F.3d at 429). He
must state what facts he believes discovery would uncover and how those

1

Rec. Doc. No. 16. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is at Rec. Doc. No. 2.

Document Number: 45472 
Page 1 of 2 

facts would support personal jurisdiction. Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum
Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 855 (5th Cir. 2000). “Discovery on matters of
personal jurisdiction ... need not be permitted unless the motion to dismiss
raises issues of fact. When lack of personal jurisdiction is clear, discovery
would serve no purpose and should not be permitted.” Wyatt, 686 F.2d at
284. The decision to allow jurisdictional discovery is within the discretion of
the district court. Fielding, 415 F.3d at 419.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby granted an extension of time to oppose the
Defendants’ motion;2 however, Plaintiff must make this preliminary showing of jurisdiction
in its opposition brief and satisfy the requirements set forth above by the Fifth Circuit to
establish the need for jurisdictional discovery.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose [Defendant’s] Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction3 is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall file an
Opposition to the Defendants’ motion on or before May 2, 2018. Defendants’ Unopposed
Motion for Briefing Schedule4 is GRANTED and Defendants shall file a Reply on or before
May 11, 2018. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled to
jurisdictional discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on April 26, 2018. 

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2

Rec. Doc. No. 16.
Rec. Doc. No. 16. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is at Rec. Doc. No. 2.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 17.  
3

Document Number: 45472 
Page 2 of 2