Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Trend Micro Inc. v. Open Text, Inc.

    Civil Action 1:22-cv-1063 (RDA/LRV) (E.D. Va. Sep. 29, 2023)

    Thus Plaintiff's “suspicions constitute only speculation and conclusory assertions,” which “do not rise to the level . . . that would justify jurisdictional discovery.” Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc., No. 3:16CV41, 2018 WL 6537151, at *7 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018).

  2. Jackson v. Genuine Data Servs.

    CIVIL 3:21cv211(DJN) (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Putting aside the form of Plaintiff s request, the Court will nevertheless deny Plaintiffs request on the merits, because it finds that such a general demand for jurisdictional discovery to be overbroad and unsupported by "specific and substantive" allegations of the relationship between Defendant and the forum state. Compare Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc., 2018 WL 6537151, at *7 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018) (in FCRA case, denying plaintiffs request for all contracts pertaining to obtaining or selling plaintiffs credit information as overbroad, because the request lacked specificity), with Mamo v. BP P.L.C., 2006 WL 572327, at *2 (Mar. 7, 2006 E.D. Va.) (permitting jurisdictional discovery when plaintiff made "specific and substantive" allegations regarding personal jurisdiction and submitted a declaration and documents discussing some of the defendant's contacts with forum state).

  3. Spendlove v. RapidCourt, LLC

    Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-856 (E.D. Va. Dec. 20, 2019)

    whether the defendant maintains offices or agents in the forum state; whether the defendant owns property in the forum state; whether the defendant reached into the forum state to solicit or initiate business; whether the defendant deliberately engaged in significant or long-term business activities in the forum state; whether the parties contractually agreed that the law of the forum state would govern disputes; whether the defendant made in-person contact with the resident of the forum in the forum state regarding the business relationship; the nature, quality and extent of the parties' communications about the business being transacted; and whether the performance of contractual duties was to occur within the forum.Consulting Engineers Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 272, 278 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Reynolds Foil, Inc. v. Pai, No. 3:09cv657, 2010 WL 1225620, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2010); Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc., No. 3:16cv41, 2018 WL 6537151, at *5 n.19 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018). These decisions teach that the Plaintiffs are entitled to discoverable information relevant to whether RapidCourt solicited customers in Virginia, held contracts with Virginia business for the purpose of obtaining or transmitting records to customers, or accessed or transmitted Virginia records to third parties.

  4. Gratz v. Gratz

    Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-645 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Federal courts exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed under state law for the state in which they sit. See New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp, 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005); Gillison v. Lead Express, Inc., No.3:16cv41, 2018 WL 6537151, *5 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018). Personal jurisdiction must comport with both state law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

  5. Edwards v. Schwartz

    378 F. Supp. 3d 468 (W.D. Va. 2019)   Cited 37 times
    Granting motion to dismiss in a case involving a scientific debate over water contamination in Flint, Michigan

    His contention that the defendants, "both individually and acting as conspirators in concert and together ... participated in ... electronically communicating and/or mailing a damaging defamatory and tortious letter and email" to Virginia Tech is factually unsupported. See Gillison v. Lead Express. Inc., No. 3:16CV41, 2018 WL 6537151, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2018) (citing Machulsky v. HaIl, 210 F.Supp.2d 531, 537 (D.N.J. 2002) for the proposition that "[a]t no point may a plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendant's ... motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" (citation omitted) ). Indeed, Edwards concedes that the Letter only "may have ... been saved on and distributed from other defendants' computers."