Young v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery; finding as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Dft may file a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction following the completion of the limited jurisdictional discovery. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/6/21 (alt)

Case 4:19-cv-00099-DN-PK Document 19 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.107 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
VERELYN MARVIN YOUNG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE
OPERATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST
FOR LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL
DISCOVERY
Case No. 4:19-cv-00099-DN-PK
District Judge David Nuffer

This action arises from an automobile accident allegedly caused by a vehicle’s driver-side
tire suffering a catastrophic de-tread event. 1 Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant for strict
products liability and negligence. 2 Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction and requests leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (“Motion”). 3
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, including the request for limited discovery, arguing that specific
personal jurisdiction over Defendant exists based on the Complaint’s allegations and a stream of
commerce theory. 4
Because discovery will assist both parties in addressing the specific personal jurisdiction
issue raised by Defendant’s Motion, Defendant’s request for leave to conduct limited
jurisdictional discovery 5 is GRANTED. The parties are given leave to conduct discovery, limited
1

Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint (“Complaint”) ¶¶ 5.3-5.4 at 9, docket no. 2, filed Nov. 26, 2019.

2

Id. ¶¶ 6.1-6.14 at 9-12.

Defendant Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Request for Jurisdictional Discovery (“Motion”), docket no. 11, filed Mar. 17, 2020.

3

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Response”), docket
no. 12, filed Apr. 13, 2020.

4

5

Motion at 5.

Case 4:19-cv-00099-DN-PK Document 19 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.108 Page 2 of 4

to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction, for a period of 90 days. The remainder of
Defendant’s Motion 6 is MOOT. Defendant may file a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, if appropriate, following the completion of the permitted jurisdictional
discovery.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes 71 separately numbered allegations regarding personal
jurisdiction. 7 Defendant requests leave to conduct limited discovery to refute these allegations
and determine “whether the Plaintiffs can establish any specific connection between any actions
by [Defendant], the specific product at issue, and the accident that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’
cause of action.” 8 Defendant supports its Motion with the Declaration of Brian J. Queiser
(“Queiser Declaration”), 9 which asserts that the subject tire was designed in Akron, Ohio, and
was manufactured in Joliette, Quebec, Canada. 10 The Queiser Declaration also asserts facts
regarding the general process by which Defendant’s tires are distributed after they are
manufactured, as well as facts regarding Defendant’s business activities in Utah. 11
Defendant argues that its general distribution process and limited business activities in
Utah strongly suggest that the subject tire was not sold in Utah and that Plaintiff’s claims do not
arise out of Defendant’s activities in Utah. 12 The Queiser Declaration states that there are rarely

6

Docket no. 11, filed Mar. 17, 2020.

7

Complaint ¶¶ 3.1-3.71 at 3-8.

8

Motion at 5.

9

Docket no. 11-1, filed Mar. 17, 2020.

10

Id. ¶¶ 6, 10 at 2-3.

11

Id. ¶¶ 9-16 at 3-4.

12

Motion at 2, 11.

2

Case 4:19-cv-00099-DN-PK Document 19 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.109 Page 3 of 4

records for tracing the distribution of a specific tire. 13 Because of this, Defendant may not be in
possession of the evidence it seeks to refute Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations.
Defendant’s request for jurisdictional discovery differs from the usual case. Requests for
jurisdictional discovery are often raised by a plaintiff in response to a defendant’s motion that is
supported by evidence showing a lack of forum-related activity to support personal jurisdiction.
This is because it is a plaintiff’s burden to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant, 14 and
the plaintiff generally is not in possession of evidence regarding the defendant’s forum-related
activities to adequately dispute the defendant’s evidence.
Nevertheless, the Queiser Declaration is sufficient to suggest that evidence may exist to
refute Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations, and that Defendant may not be in possession of such
evidence. It is appropriate to permit Defendant the opportunity to discover and present such
evidence to challenge Plaintiff’s allegations of personal jurisdiction. If Defendant presents such
evidence, Plaintiffs may not rest on the Complaint’s allegations. “The allegations in the
complaint [are] taken as true [only] to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant’s
affidavits.” 15 Rather, Plaintiffs must present evidence showing that the exercise of specific
personal jurisdiction over Defendant is appropriate. And “[i]f the parties present conflicting
affidavits, all factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, and the plaintiff’s prima
facie showing is sufficient notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the [defendant].” 16
Therefore, permitting discovery will assist both parties in addressing the personal jurisdiction

13

Queiser Declaration ¶ 13 at 4.

Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503, 1505 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors, 298 U.S. 178, 189
(1936)).
14

15

Id. (internal quotations omitted).

16

Id. (internal quotations omitted).

3

Case 4:19-cv-00099-DN-PK Document 19 Filed 01/06/21 PageID.110 Page 4 of 4

issue raised by Defendant’s Motion. It is reasonable that through the exercise of due diligence,
discovery limited to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction will be completed within 90 days.
If appropriate, after the completion of the limited jurisdictional discovery, Defendant may
file a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If Defendant files a renewed
motion to dismiss, the following authorities may assist the parties in refining their legal
arguments regarding the requirements for establishing specific personal jurisdiction:
•

Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, VidAngel, Inc.
v. Sullivan Entm’t Grp., Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00989-DN (D. Utah), ECF no.
129, filed July 27, 2018; and

•

Memorandum Decision and Order Denying BWI North America, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Spencer v.
Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00427-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), ECF
no. 118, filed Aug. 20, 2018.
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s request for leave to conduct limited
jurisdictional discovery 17 is GRANTED. The parties are given leave to conduct discovery,
limited to the issue of specific personal jurisdiction, for a period of 90 days. The remainder of
Defendant’s Motion 18 is MOOT. Defendant may file a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, if appropriate, following the completion of the limited jurisdictional
discovery.
Signed January 6, 2021.
BY THE COURT
_____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
17

Motion at 5.

18

Docket no. 11, filed Mar. 17, 2020.

4