Clayton et al v. Bear Mountain Lodge LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Conduct Discovery Relevant to Venue and Jurisdiction as set out. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 10/13/15.(alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

HUBERT WAYNE CLAYTON,
)
Individually and as Co-Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of
)
Kimberley Carol Clayton Antonakos,
)
Deceased; Individually and as Personal )
Representative of the Estate of Milton )
Constantine Antonakos, III, Deceased; )
Individually and as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of Olivia
)
Jane Antonakos, Deceased; and
)
Individually and as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of
)
Anastacia Clayton Antonakos,
)
Deceased; CRISLER G. JOHNSON,
)
Individually and as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of Milton c. )
Antonakos, Jr., Deceased; LAWRENCE )
F. MCMANUS, JR., Individually and as )
Special Administrator of the Estate of
)
Christopher Michael McManus,
)
Deceased; LARRY D. KESSLER,
)
Individually and as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of Stacey )
Dickert McManus, Deceased; JOHNNIE )
DICKERT, RACHAEL DICKERT and
)
KATHLEEN M. MCMANUS, Individually )
and as Co-Personal Representatives of )
the Estate of Conner Michael McManus, )
Deceased, and Individually and as Co- )
Personal Representatives of the Estate )
of Meghan Alexandra McManus,
)
Deceased
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BEAR MOUNTAIN LODGE, LLC, an
)
Alaska limited liability company;
)
MERRILL MCGAHAN, Individually,
)
d/b/a Bear Mountain Lodge; LAURI B. )
JOHNSON, Individually, d/b/a Bear
)

Page 1 of 4

C/A No.: 6:15-cv-2622-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

Mountain Lodge; TEXAS TURBINE
CONVERSIONS, INC., a Texas
corporation; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RECON AIR
CORPORATION; a foreign corporation;
and VIKING AIR LTD., a foreign
corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct
Discovery Relevant to Venue and Personal Jurisdiction. ECF No. 16. Plaintiffs filed
this motion on September 8, 2015, requesting this Court grant certain specified
limited discovery in order to provide Plaintiffs a fair opportunity to respond to
Defendants Bear Mountain Lodge, Merrill McGahan, and Lauri Johnson’s
(“Defendants’”)

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(2) and (b)(3). ECF No. 16 at 4–5. Defendants filed a response on September
18, 2015, arguing that Plaintiffs’ motion does not offer any substantive or concrete
proffer of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim for jurisdiction and is merely a “fishing
expedition.” ECF No. 28. Plaintiffs filed a reply on September 28, 2015. ECF No. 33.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery
Relevant to Venue and Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.
This Court has broad discretion in resolving discovery problems under the
federal rules. Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Azko, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 56–60 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing
Combs v. Baker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989)). “When a Plaintiff’s claim does
not appear to be frivolous, a district court should ordinarily allow discovery on
jurisdiction in order to aid the Plaintiff in discharging the burden of establishing the

Page 2 of 4

court’s jurisdiction.” Cent. Wesleyan Coll. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 143 F.R.D. 628, 644
(D.S.C. 1992), aff’d, 6 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 1993). However, once a defendant presents
evidence disputing a plaintiff’s allegations of jurisdiction, a plaintiff cannot rely on bare
allegations to use jurisdictional discovery as a fishing expedition. Mylan Labs, 2 F.3d
at 64 (quoting Rich v. KIS California, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254 (1988)).
Here, Plaintiffs contend that their claims of personal jurisdiction over
Defendants are well-founded. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants reached into South
Carolina to advertise their services, and that Defendants accepted payment, planned
itineraries, carried out logistics, and made arrangements over the phone, internet and
mails to Greenville, South Carolina for purposes of selling their services to Plaintiffs’
decedents. ECF Nos. 16 at 7 & 33 at 4. Plaintiffs further allege that critical evidence
regarding Defendants’ contacts with South Carolina is uniquely held in Defendants’
possession. ECF No. 16 at 4. In support of their arguments, Plaintiffs note that
Defendants had no contact with Plaintiffs’ decedents in Alaska, and argue that all
contact between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ decedents must then have occurred in
South Carolina. ECF No. 33 at 5–6.
Having reviewed the above facts and the parties’ arguments, this Court
declines to categorize Plaintiffs’ claims as frivolous or their request for limited
discovery as a fishing expedition. Instead, this Court finds that limited discovery on
the subjects of personal jurisdiction and venue is appropriate to aid Plaintiffs in
discharging their burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction over Defendants. The
scope of this discovery request shall be limited to the specified documents and
materials set forth in the instant motion.

Page 3 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Discovery Relevant to Venue and Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have
ninety (90) days in which to conduct limited discovery and thirty (30) days to respond
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss after completion of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 13, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4