Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-1072.
May 11, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Discovery Necessary to Answer Defendant's Pending 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 4). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
In the instant action, Plaintiff, Patrick Neary, ("Plaintiff") asserts claims against BL Service, Inc. ("BL Service") and Jhonson Ducaste ("Ducaste"), who was an employee of BL Service at all relevant times, for negligence and strict liability arising out of an alleged car accident that occurred on or about March 13, 2002 in Florida. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, BL Service, owns and operates "Yellow Cab" vehicles in the State of Florida, (Compl. ¶ 5), and on the night at issue, Ducaste, acting within the scope of his employment for BL Service, drove Plaintiff in one of its vehicles. (Id. ¶ 6). Plaintiff further alleges that at approximately 1:20 a.m., the "Yellow Cab" vehicle in which Plaintiff was riding, was travelling on Collins Avenue en route to his hotel from the airport when it struck another cab that was stopped at an intersection waiting to make a turn. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13). Plaintiff alleges that the accident was caused by Ducaste's negligence and that he suffered severe injuries as a result as a result of the accident. (Id. ¶¶ 18-26).
On April 1, 2004, Defendant BL Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, motion to transfer. (Dkt. No. 3). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 19, 2004.
A court has discretion to permit limited discovery when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Assoc., 107 F.3d 1026,1042 (3d Cir. 1997). Jurisdictional discovery may be denied where the party that bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction fails to establish a "threshold prima facie showing" of personal jurisdiction.Southern Ocean Seafood Co. v. Holt Cargo Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 539763, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 1997) (citing Arch v. American Tobacco Inc., 1997 WL 338597, at * 11 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 1997)). A prima facie case requires factual allegations that suggest "with reasonable particularity" the possible existence of the requisite "contacts between [the party] and the forum state."Mellon Bank PSFS v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992). Where a defendant has submitted an affidavit attesting to a lack of jurisdictional contacts and plaintiff, who has the burden of establishing jurisdictional facts, has countered the affidavits with mere speculation, his request for an opportunity to conduct discovery on the matter must be denied. See Narco Avionics, Inc. v. Sportsmen's Market, Inc., 1992 WL 17106, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 1992) ("Where plaintiff's assertion of personal jurisdiction is tenuous and based on mere allegations and speculation in the face of specific sworn denials by defendants, more exhaustive discovery is not appropriate."); see also Ames v. Whitman's Chocolates, 1991 WL 281798 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 1991) (refusing to permit jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff failed to present affidavits or other evidence to refute affidavits denying jurisdictional contacts).
Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations are as follow. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania and Defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida — having its principal place of business in a state other than the State of Pennsylvania. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 2). Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the United States, residing at 613 Smoke House Road, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19382. (Id. ¶ 3). Defendant, BL Service, Inc. is a Florida Corporation doing business as "Yellow Cab" whose business address is 221 W. Oakland Park Boulevard, Floor 2, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311. (Id. ¶ 4). Defendant, Jhonson Ducaste, is an adult individual residing at 540 N.W. 4th Avenue, #108, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 and at all relevant times was an employee of BL Service, Inc. (Id. ¶ 5).
In a sworn affidavit, Samuel F. Battle, Vice-President/Risk Manager of Defendant BL Service, asserted that: "(1) BL Service operates a commercial livery service entirely and solely within the State of Florida; (2) BL Service has never been affiliated, associated or in any related to a `Yellow Cab' company that conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (3) BL Service has never been authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (4) BL Service has never conducted business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (5) BL Service has never advertised in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (6) BL Service has never maintained offices, facilities, agents or employees in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (7) According to the Florida Department of State's website, the name `Yellow Cab' is not a trademark in the State of Florida; and (8) According to the Florida Department of State's website, forty-seven (47) companies or corporation use the words Yellow Cab' as, or part of, their name." (Affidavit of Samuel F. Battle ¶¶ 4-11).
To succeed on his motion, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a threshold prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction exists over the Defendant. As noted, Defendant filed a sworn affidavit stating that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over BL Service in the instant action. Plaintiff, however, responds to Defendant's sworn affidavit with nothing short of mere speculation. (See Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Response Against Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Discovery Necessary to Answer Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to 12(b)(6) at 1-3). Thus, neither the Complaint nor Plaintiff's motion contains factual allegations that suggests with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between BL Service and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for an opportunity to conduct discovery on the jurisdictional issue must be denied.
AND NOW, this day of May, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Discovery Necessary to Answer Defendant's Pending 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 4), and the responses thereto, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by May 19, 2004.