Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02368-ODW-RAO
07-13-2016
CONNEX RAILROAD LLC; and TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs, v. AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS [28]
Pending before the Court are two Motions. The first is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for forum non conveniens pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) filed by Defendant AXA CORPORATE SOLUTIONS ASSURANCE ("AXA"). (ECF No. 14.) Second is a Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiffs CONNEX RAILROAD LLC ("Connex") and TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC. ("Transdev"). (ECF No. 28.) The Motions are fully briefed. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds that the factual record is sufficiently developed to properly decide the Motions.
This Order has no effect on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (ECF No. 18.) --------
In circumstances "where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary" to make a fully-informed decision on the issue of personal jurisdiction, a court may grant jurisdictional discovery. Borschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Without this discovery, the court would lack sufficient information to make an informed decision. See Seedman v. Cochlear Ams. No. SACV 15-00366 JVS (JCGx), 2015 WL 4768239, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (noting that limited jurisdictional discovery "could establish specific jurisdiction").
The parties raise strong arguments in support of their positions on the question whether the Court must dismiss for forum non conveniens. The Court concludes, however, that the additional discovery requested would not create a "reasonable probability" that the outcome of the motion to dismiss would be different. Laub v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2003). The Court has the facts necessary to make a fully-informed decision on the issue.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 28.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 13, 2016
/s/ _________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE