Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America et al v. Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Discovery. Plaintiffs may file a supplemental objection to defendants' motions to dismiss on or before 2/17/12. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Grand Encampment of Knights
Templar of the United States
of America, et al.
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-463-JD

Conference of Grand Masters of
Masons in North America, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States
of America and the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of New
Hampshire brought suit in state court against the Conference of
Grand Masters of Masons in North America, Inc. and seven
individuals associated with the Conference of Grand Masters,
alleging intentional interference with contractual relations,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and
civil conspiracy.

The defendants removed the case to this court

and move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The

plaintiffs filed objections to the motions to dismiss and also
move for jurisdictional discovery.

The Conference of Grand

Masters and one individual defendant, Richard Swaney, object to
the motion for discovery.
discovery in this order.

The court addresses the motion for

Standard of Review
“‘[A] diligent plaintiff who sues an out-of-state
corporation and who makes out a colorable case for the existence
of in personam jurisdiction may well be entitled to a modicum of
jurisdictional discovery’” in response to a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

Negron-Torres v. Verizon Comm’ns,

Inc., 478 F.3d 19, 27 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v.
Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 626 (1st Cir. 2001)).

To be

diligent, the plaintiff must request discovery in a timely
manner.

Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118, 140

(1st Cir. 2006).

In addition to establishing diligence, the

plaintiff must present a colorable claim of jurisdiction and
provide “‘facts to the court which show why jurisdiction would be
found if discovery were permitted.’”

Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d 27

(quoting Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d at 626).

A.

Diligence
The plaintiffs filed their motion for jurisdictional

discovery at the same time with their objection to the motions to
dismiss.

The defendants do not challenge the plaintiffs’

diligence.

Therefore, the plaintiffs meet the diligence

requirement.

2

B.

Discoverable Facts to Support Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction in a diversity action over non-

resident defendants depends on satisfying the requirements of the
forum state’s long-arm statute and the due process requirements
of the Fourteenth Amendment.

See Cossaboon v. Me. Med. Ctr.,600

F.3d 25, 29 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010); N. Laminate Sales, Inc. v.
Davis, 403 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir. 2005).

New Hampshire’s long-arm

statutes exert personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by due
process.

Id.; Jet Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., Ltd.,

298 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2002).

A court may exercise general or

specific personal jurisdiction, which must satisfy the
requirements of due process.

Carreras v. PMG Collins, LLC, 660

F.3d 549, 552 (1st Cir. 2011).
The plaintiffs assert that specific personal jurisdiction
exists over the defendants.

Specific jurisdiction requires the

plaintiffs to show that their causes of action “arise from or
relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum, . . . [that]
the defendant purposefully availed itself of the protections of
the forum’s laws by means of those contacts, [and] that the
defendant could reasonably foresee being haled into the forum’s
courts.”

Id. at 554.

Therefore, to be entitled to

jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs must show that they can
make a colorable claim of specific personal jurisdiction and
3

specify what facts would be produced through jurisdictional
discovery to support that claim.

See Negron-Torres, 478 F.3d at

27.
The plaintiffs’ claims arise out of communications by the
defendants with other Masonic groups and members in which the
defendants allegedly claimed that the Grand Encampment of Knights
Templar and other groups related to the Grand Encampment were
“irregular” organizations.

The plaintiffs contend that the

defendants issued reports, published documents, and sent letters
and emails to Masonic groups and members, including the New
Hampshire Grand Lodge.

The plaintiffs also contend that a

commission of the Conference of Grand Masters issued a report,
sent to the New Hampshire Grand Lodge, that found the Great
Priory of Occitania to be irregular.

The report was also

published at a conference that was attended by New Hampshire
Grand Encampment members.

Swaney, the Grand Master of the Grand

Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Illinois, declared
the Grand Encampment to be irregular and decreed that no Illinois
Mason would have interaction with the Grand Encampment.

The

plaintiffs assert that the defendants’ efforts to brand them as
irregular has interfered with their ability to raise money for
certain charitable causes.

4

The objecting defendants do not challenge the plaintiffs’
colorable claim of personal jurisdiction.

Instead, the objecting

defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not shown a need for
jurisdictional discovery because they have not “identified the
type of evidence or facts they seek to discover, and have not
demonstrated why those facts would support personal jurisdiction
over the Conference of Grand Masters or Richard Swaney.”
In support of their motion, the plaintiffs state that
through discovery they will obtain information to show that the
defendants wanted “to motivate and encourage others to
disseminate the claim of ‘irregularity’ through the Grand
Commanderies of all fifty states, including New Hampshire.”

The

plaintiffs further state that “Defendants knew such a claim would
result in the Grand Commanderies being prohibited from
interacting with Plaintiffs, which would deprive them of the
ability to receive charitable funds or administer the charities.”
Therefore, the discovery the plaintiffs seek is aimed at the
defendants’ motive in communicating that the Grand Encampment and
other organizations were irregular.
The objecting defendants appropriately point out that the
plaintiffs’ statement of discoverable facts lacks detail about
the anticipated discovery.

The nexus with Swaney appears to be

5

particularly weak.

The other defendants, however, do not object

to the motion.
The plaintiffs will be permitted discovery on the issues
pertinent to personal jurisdiction, which is limited to the
defendants’ contacts with New Hampshire that would satisfy the
requirements for specific personal jurisdiction: relatedness,
purposeful availment, and fairness.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion for
jurisdictional discovery (document no. 23) is granted.
The plaintiffs are granted the opportunity to conduct
discovery limited to issues pertinent to personal jurisdiction to
be completed by February 10, 2012.

The plaintiffs may file a

supplemental objection to the defendants’ motions to dismiss on
or before February 17, 2012.

Thereafter, the Local Rules of this

district supply the requirements for any responses.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
December 20, 2011
cc:

Jennifer Turco Beaudet, Esquire
Mark A. Darling, Esquire
Kathleen A. Davidson, Esquire
Lawrence B. Gormley, Esquire
Jamie N. Hage, Esquire
Thomas J. Pappas, Esquire
Michael D. Ramsdell, Esquire
6