Kedrowski v. Lycoming Engines et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying plaintiff's letter request [ECF No. 23].(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 2/20/15. (TCKB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 15-19(DSD/LIB)
Mark Kedrowski,
Plaintiff.
ORDER

v.
Lycoming Engines, a division
of AVCO Corporation, Aero
Associates, Inc., Timothy H.
Henderson, John Doe, and
Jane Doe,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the request by plaintiff
Mark Kedrowski for a telephonic hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.3.
Kedrowski intends to seek a continuance to conduct additional
discovery

into

jurisdictional

and

factual

issues

raised

by

defendants in their motions to dismiss. A hearing on those motions
is scheduled for March 20, 2015.
The court does not consider matters outside of the pleadings
when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

The court may

consider, however, matters of public record and materials that do
not contradict

the

complaint,

as

well as

“necessarily embraced by the pleadings.”

materials

that are

Porous Media Corp. v.

Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999).

If the court

looks to matters outside this scope, it must treat the motion as
one for summary judgment under Rule 56 and give the parties “a
reasonable

opportunity

to

present

all

the

material

that

is

pertinent to the motion.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

The court may, however, consider matters outside of the
pleadings when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
or subject matter jurisdiction, without having the motion converted
to one for summary judgment.

See Deuser v. Vecera, 139 F.3d 1190,

1191 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998); Pope v. Elabo GmbH, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1008,
1012-13 (D. Minn. 2008).

Here, defendants Aero Accessories, Inc.

(Aero) and Timothy Henderson have filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state
a claim. See ECF No. 6.

Defendant Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) has

moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure
to state a claim, and under Colorado River abstention principles.
See ECF No. 17.1
In support of its motion, defendants Henderson and Aero have
submitted declarations by Henderson and Thomas Welsh, an employee
at Aero Accessories, Inc.

Lycoming has submitted correspondences

between the parties’ attorneys and the Honorable John D. Guthmann,
Ramsey County District Court Judge, which pertain to a state
proceeding relating to the instant dispute.

Lycoming has also

provided an affidavit from Daniel A. Haws, an attorney representing

1

The court is not aware of any authority that prevents it
from considering matters outside of the pleadings when deciding a
motion to dismiss brought under Colorado River. Rule 12(d)
expressly pertains only to motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6).
In any event, it appears that much of the material submitted in
support of the abstention argument is publically available.
2

Lycoming in the state proceeding, as well as other publically-filed
matters

in

that

proceeding.

The

court

has

reviewed

these

materials, and the memoranda supporting the motions, and finds that
any extraneous factual material included therein has no bearing on
defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6).2

As a result, the court

does not find that discovery regarding defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
arguments is warranted, even if Kedrowski were to file a formal
motion requesting such discovery.
Moreover, the court finds that Kedrowski has not shown at this
time that he is entitled to jurisdictional discovery.

Typically,

jurisdictional discovery will only be permitted where a plaintiff
offers some sort of documentary evidence - rather than speculations
or conclusory allegations - of a defendant’s contacts with a forum
state. See Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 589 (8th Cir. 2008);
Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.1 (8th Cir.
2004).

Kedrowski has included jurisdictional allegations in his

complaint.

He has not, however, provided the court with any

additional documentation.

As a result, a hearing to discuss

jurisdictional discovery would not be warranted at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kedrowski’s request for
a telephonic hearing [ECF No. 23] is denied.

2

The court notes that some allegations in the Haws
affidavit could support defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
court will accordingly disregard those allegations when
considering whether Kedrowski has stated a claim.
3

The

Dated: February 20, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

4