AdvoCare International, LP v. Modere, Inc.
4:17-cv-00194
E.D. Tex.Aug 22, 2017Background
- AdvoCare sued Modere, Inc., Amber DeLoof, and Jessie Lee Ward alleging tortious interference, trade-secret misappropriation, and civil conspiracy for recruiting AdvoCare distributors to join Modere.
- AdvoCare amended its complaint on June 5, 2017; Individual Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), asserting lack of personal jurisdiction.
- AdvoCare moved for expedited jurisdictional discovery and to continue its response deadline to the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- AdvoCare sought discovery about the Individual Defendants’ contacts with Texas (travel, meetings at a Modere conference in Arlington, business downlines including Texas residents) to support specific-jurisdiction allegations.
- The court reviewed the pleadings and found AdvoCare made a preliminary showing of jurisdiction and that the requested discovery was likely to produce facts relevant to defeat the motion to dismiss.
- The court granted expedited jurisdictional discovery, set production and deposition deadlines, and continued AdvoCare’s deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss until 14 days after completion of the discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff should be permitted jurisdictional discovery to investigate defendants’ contacts with Texas | Jurisdictional discovery will uncover travel, meetings, and Texas business contacts showing specific jurisdiction | Adair defendants argued AdvoCare failed to show discovery would produce relevant facts to defeat the motion to dismiss | Court allowed expedited jurisdictional discovery; plaintiff made a preliminary showing and discovery likely to produce needed facts |
| Whether plaintiff’s response deadline to motion to dismiss should be continued pending discovery | Response deadline should be continued until discovery completes to allow use of obtained evidence | Defendants opposed continuation | Court continued AdvoCare’s response deadline to 14 days after completion of the ordered discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1982) (district court has broad discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery)
- Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff seeking jurisdictional discovery must identify needed discovery and how it supports jurisdiction)
- Fielding v. Hubery Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff can supplement jurisdictional allegations through discovery after a preliminary showing)
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (discovery may be required where the facts are needed to withstand a motion to dismiss)