Dental Dynamics v. Jolly Dental Group
946 F.3d 1223
| 10th Cir. | 2020Background
- Dental Dynamics, an Oklahoma broker of used dental equipment, arranged sales nationwide and is located in Oklahoma; Kellie Haller is its sole member.
- Dr. Scott Jolly, an Arkansas dentist, operates Jolly Dental Group, LLC in North Little Rock, Arkansas.
- The parties had three contacts from 2008–2017: a 2008 inquiry, a May 2017 sale (the dispute here), and a June 2017 purchase that was refunded after defects were found. Communications were by phone, email, and text.
- In May 2017 Jolly sold a Planmex Promax X-Ray unit to Dental Dynamics, which resold it to a California buyer; the unit shipped from Arkansas to California and never entered Oklahoma; the buyer received a defective unit.
- Dental Dynamics sued in federal court in Oklahoma for breach of contract (against Jolly Dental) and fraud (against Dr. Jolly). Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of specific personal jurisdiction; the district court granted the motion and denied jurisdictional discovery; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma has specific personal jurisdiction over Jolly Dental for breach of contract | Jolly's repeated business interactions since 2008 and the May 2017 bill of sale establish purposeful contacts with Oklahoma | Contacts were isolated, negotiated remotely, and too attenuated to constitute purposeful availment of Oklahoma | No jurisdiction — transactions were random/attenuated and lacked ongoing ties to Oklahoma |
| Whether Oklahoma has specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Jolly for fraud (intentional tort) | Dr. Jolly’s alleged knowing misrepresentations to Dental Dynamics—an Oklahoma entity—targeted Oklahoma and caused harm there | Communications incidental to a sale (aimed at effecting a sale to a California buyer) do not expressly aim tortious conduct at Oklahoma | No jurisdiction — plaintiff’s location alone insufficient; conduct was not expressly aimed at Oklahoma |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying limited jurisdictional discovery | Discovery would likely reveal additional contacts and establish jurisdiction | Plaintiff offered only speculation, not contested jurisdictional facts warranting discovery | No abuse of discretion — denial proper because plaintiff failed to show prejudice or specific facts to discover |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts due process framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contracts analyzed by negotiations, future consequences, and course of dealing for purposeful availment)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (plaintiff’s forum connections alone cannot supply defendant’s purposeful contacts; focus is defendant’s relationship with forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional-tort jurisdiction requires conduct expressly aimed at forum and causing foreseeable effects there)
- Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2017) (de novo review; applies specific-jurisdiction two-part test)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must make prima facie showing; purposeful availment analysis)
- Newsome v. Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2013) (forum as focal point of tort can support jurisdiction where defendants had stronger forum contacts)
- C5 Medical Werks, LLC v. CeramTec GMBH, 937 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2019) (contacts selected by third parties or incidental interactions insufficient for purposeful direction)
- Rockwood Select Asset Fund XI (6)-1, LLC v. Devine, 750 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2014) (interaction with forum-based plaintiff alone does not establish jurisdiction for alleged torts)
- AST Sports Science, Inc. v. CLF Distribution Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054 (10th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff may make jurisdictional showing via affidavits; defendant’s unreasonableness burden varies with strength of contacts)