Al Hamra Trading Est. . v. Diamondback Tactical, LLLP et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying without prejudice the motion 16 Motion to Dismiss; to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). The Court will address the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in a separate Memorandum and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 07/09/2013. (thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:12cv373
AL HAMRA TRADING EST.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
DIAMONDBACK TACTICAL, LLLP, )
et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Walsh’s Motions to Dismiss [# 16].
Plaintiff brought this action for fraudulent transfer and punitive damages against
Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff seeks to pierce the corporate veil and hold
Defendants liable for the debts of Defendant First Choice Armor and Equipment,
Inc. (“First Choice”). Defendant Daniel Walsh moves to dismiss all the claims
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and (6). The Court DENIES without prejudice the
motion [# 16] to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2). The Court will address the Rule 12(b)(6) motion in a separate
Memorandum and Recommendation.
-1-
I.
Legal Standard
A plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over a defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. New Wellington
Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005).
Courts are provided flexibility in how the address a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. For example, a Court may rule on the motion based on the
pleadings, hold an evidentiary hearing, or allow jurisdictional discovery prior to
ruling on the motion. See Marx Indus., Inc. v. Chestnut Ridge Foam, Inc., No.
5:11cv139-RLV, 2012 WL 4888322 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 2012) (Voorhees, J.)
However, when the District Court rules on a defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to
dismiss without an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff need only set forth a prima facie
case that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id.; Mylan Labs.,
Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). In determining whether a
plaintiff has made this prima facie showing, the Court construes the allegations in
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must resolve all
factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff. New Wellington, 416 F.3d at 294; Mylan
Labs., 2 F.3d at 60.
In order to determine whether Plaintiff has satisfied its burden, the Court
must engage in a two-step analysis. Ellicott Mach. Corp ., Inc. v. John Holland
-2-
Party Ltd., 995 F.2d 474, 477 (4th Cir. 1993); Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. v. Delta
Int'l Corp., 696 F.2d 1062, 1064 (4th Cir.1982). First, the Court must determine
whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is authorized by
North Carolina's long-arm statute. New Wellington, 416 F.3d at 294; Ellicott
Mach., 995 F.2d at 477. Second, the Court considers whether the exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. New Wellington, 416 F.3d at 294; Ellicott Mach., 995
F.2d at 477. Because the North Carolina Supreme Court has interpreted the state's
long-arm statute to reach the constitutional limits of due process, Dillon v.
Numismatic Funding Corp., 231 S.E.2d 629, 630-31 (N.C.1977), courts have
compressed this two-step inquiry into a single inquiry, see CEM Corp. v. Personal
Chemistry, 55 F. App'x 621, 623 (4th Cir. 2003) (unpublished); Gen. Latex &
Chem. Corp. v. Phoenix Med. Tech., Inc. 765 F. Supp. 1246, 1249 n. 1
(W.D.N.C.1991) (Potter, J.); Shinn v. Greeness, 218 F.R.D. 478, 481
(M.D.N.C.2003).
Personal jurisdiction may either be specific or general. ALS Scan Inc. v.
Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 711-12 (4th Cir. 2002). Where a
defendant’s contacts with the forum state also provide the basis for the suit against
the defendant, the contacts may establish specific jurisdiction. Id.; Carefirst of Md,
-3-
Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 397 (4th Cir. 2003). “In
determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, we consider (1) the extent to
which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the state; (2) whether the plaintiffs’ claims arise out of those activities
directed at the state; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be
considered reasonable.” Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 397 (internal quotation and citation
omitted). In contrast, where a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are not
also the basis of the claims, then jurisdiction over the defendant must constitute
general jurisdiction. Id. “To establish general jurisdiction, the defendant’s
activities in the state must have been continuous and systematic.” Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted.)
II.
Analysis
The Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is necessary in this case to
determine whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Walsh.
Although this Court could rule only on the pleadings and rule on whether the
Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Defendant
Walsh, such a ruling would require the District Court at a later date to conduct an
evidentiary hearing or determine at trial whether Plaintiff has satisfied its ultimate
burden of demonstrating that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
-4-
Walsh. See MyKey Tech., Inc. v. TEFKAT LLC, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01468,
2012 WL 3257655 (D. Md. Aug. 7, 2012).
In addition, the Court will grant Plaintiff limited jurisdictional discovery
prior to the hearing. The Court, therefore, DENIES without prejudice the Motion
to Dismiss [#16] to the extent it seeks to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2). The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff and Defendant Walsh as follows:
(1)
Plaintiff may serve Defendant Walsh with ten (10) requests for
admission and ten (10) interrogatories by July 22, 2013. Defendant Walsh shall
have ten (10) days to respond to these discovery requests. Plaintiff, however, must
limit these requests to the issue of personal jurisdiction. To the extent that Plaintiff
intends to rely on a piercing the corporate veil theory to establish personal
jurisdiction over Plaintiff, Plaintiff may submit discovery requests related to the
piercing the corporate veil of Defendant First Choice.
(2)
The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff and Defendant Walsh to appear for an
evidentiary hearing on August 22, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 2 at the United
States District Court Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, 100
Otis Street, Asheville, North Carolina. This evidentiary hearing is limited to the
issue of whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Walsh. At the
hearing, Plaintiff will have the burden of proving that the Court has personal
-5-
jurisdiction over Defendant Walsh by a preponderance of the evidence. New
Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir.
2005). At the hearing, the Court will hear the testimony of Defendant Walsh and
any other witness Plaintiff intends to call to attempt to satisfy its burden.
(3)
The Court places the following time limits on the evidentiary hearing:
A.
Plaintiff will be allowed a brief opening argument of 10
minutes. Defendant Walsh will be allowed an opening
argument of 10 minutes.
B.
The Court limits Plaintiff’s presentation, as well as its cross
examination of any of Defendant Walsh’s witnesses to 2.5
hours. Defendant Walsh shall have 2.5 hours to cross examine
any witnesses called by Plaintiff and to offer any testimony or
evidence into the record. No rebuttal evidence will be allowed.
C.
The Court will allow each side a brief closing of 10 minutes.
Plaintiff may reserve all or a portion of this closing for rebuttal.
(4)
Defendant Walsh may renew his Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) within twenty (20) days of the hearing. The memorandum in support of
the motion should contain citations to the evidence introduced at the hearing as
well as to the testimony of Defendant Walsh and any other witness that testifies.
-6-
Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to file a response. Defendant Walsh may file a
reply, not to exceed ten (10) pages within seven (7) days of the date Plaintiff files
its response to the renewed Motion to Dismiss. Upon the submission of the
renewed motion to the Court, the Court will issue a Memorandum and
Recommendation to the District Court.
Signed: July 9, 2013
-7-
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?