Alford v. Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.
3:15-cv-16449
S.D.W. VaFeb 25, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Estate of Judith Alford and Tina Alford) sued FHI, Subaru of America, and a West Virginia repair shop over a vehicle-related injury occurring outside West Virginia; FHI moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs asked the court to hold FHI’s motion in abeyance for 60 days and permit jurisdictional discovery focused on FHI’s and Subaru’s contacts with West Virginia.
- FHI opposed, arguing courts lack power to order jurisdictional discovery and that Plaintiffs’ allegations do not justify it; Subaru joined the opposition.
- The Complaint and Plaintiffs’ motion allege FHI is a multinational corporation whose products (Subaru and other FHI-related products) are sold in West Virginia, that FHI tracks state-level sales/complaints, and that substantial business flows to West Virginia.
- FHI submitted a declaration denying business activities in West Virginia; the court found that declaration conclusory and insufficient to foreclose discovery.
- The court exercised its discretion to permit limited jurisdictional discovery (60-day deadline) to determine whether general personal jurisdiction exists over FHI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may order jurisdictional discovery | Courts have discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery to ascertain facts about personal jurisdiction | FHI contends district courts lack authority and discovery is improper | Court: District courts have discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery (citing precedent) |
| Whether Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to warrant jurisdictional discovery | Complaint and briefing allege FHI’s systematic sales/marketing tracking and substantial product presence in WV, suggesting possible general jurisdiction | FHI argues plaintiffs’ allegations are speculative and its declaration shows no WV business | Court: Allegations suggest with reasonable particularity possible general jurisdiction; discovery warranted |
| Scope of discovery | Plaintiffs seek sales data, marketing plans, state-level revenue, complaints, and traditional discovery tools | FHI implicitly argues such discovery is burdensome/unwarranted given its declaration | Court: Grants limited jurisdictional discovery focused on FHI/Subaru contacts with WV (sales, marketing, business plans, communications); 60-day limit |
| Effect of FHI declaration denying WV contacts | Plaintiffs argue declaration is conclusory and should not defeat discovery | FHI asserts its declaration shows lack of contacts, negating need for discovery | Court: Declaration too broad and unspecific; does not preclude discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion over discovery and may deny jurisdictional discovery when plaintiff offers only speculation)
- Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56 (4th Cir.) (recognizing district court discretion on discovery tied to personal jurisdiction questions)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (Sup. Ct.) (discovery is available to ascertain facts bearing on jurisdiction or venue)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff entitled to jurisdictional discovery unless claim is clearly frivolous; need facts suggesting with reasonable particularity possible jurisdiction)