Remodeling Today, Inc. v. The Titan Network, LLC
1:13-cv-00428
| S.D. Ala. | Oct 30, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Remodeling Today, Inc. (DLM) sues Bosch Thermotechnology Corp. and others; Bosch moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- DLM asserts Bosch did business in Alabama through The Titan Agency (Titan), claiming Titan acted as Bosch’s agent and bound Bosch to contracts with DLM.
- Bosch points to a contract labeling Titan an independent contractor and denies any agency relationship.
- The parties dispute whether Titan was an agent (which would permit imputing Titan’s in-forum acts to Bosch) or an independent contractor (which would block imputing those acts).
- The magistrate judge found a genuine factual dispute over agency and ordered limited jurisdictional discovery tailored to personal-jurisdiction issues before recommending disposition of Bosch’s motion to dismiss.
- Discovery was limited (10 interrogatories, 10 RFAs, 10 RFPs to each defendant; one deposition each of Bosch and Titan; strict timetable) and supplemental jurisdictional briefs were ordered after discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether personal jurisdiction over Bosch exists | Titan was Bosch’s agent; Titan’s Alabama acts can be imputed to Bosch | Titan was an independent contractor under its contract with Bosch; no agency exists | Court found jurisdictional facts in dispute and allowed limited jurisdictional discovery before ruling on the motion to dismiss |
| Whether agency vs. independent-contractor status can be resolved on existing papers | Agency is a fact-intensive inquiry and plaintiff provided specific assertions and an affidavit supporting agency | Contract language disclaiming agency supports dismissal without discovery | Court held agency is determined by facts (not labels) and ordinarily requires discovery; denied stay of Rule 26(f) and permitted targeted discovery |
| Scope of permissible discovery prior to ruling on 12(b)(2) motion | Plaintiff sought discovery focused on Bosch–Titan relationship | Bosch sought to avoid pre-decision discovery, citing due process and motion to dismiss | Court allowed narrowly tailored jurisdictional discovery limited in number and time, excluding merits questions |
| Whether further scheduling order should issue before jurisdictional resolution | Plaintiff proposed moving forward | Bosch sought stay of conferences until jurisdiction resolved | Court declined comprehensive Rule 16(b) scheduling until after jurisdictional discovery and supplemental filings |
Key Cases Cited
- United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing limits on jurisdictional discovery and when it is appropriate)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may require limited discovery)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Stevens, 783 So.2d 804 (Ala. 2000) (agency relationship determined by facts, not contractual labels)
- Ragsdale v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 632 So.2d 465 (Ala. 1994) (parties’ agreement that no agency exists does not control if facts establish agency)
- Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (acts of an agent in the forum may be imputed to a foreign principal for jurisdictional purposes)
- Gear, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 637 F. Supp. 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (district courts have discretion to grant discovery to explore Rule 12(b)(2) factual issues)
- Sharpe v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., 756 So.2d 874 (Ala. 2000) (existence and scope of agency are normally questions of fact for the jury)