Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00002/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00002-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Blake Haines,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Get Air LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00002-TUC-RM (EJM)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant Pacific Urethanes, LLC’s (“Pacific”) 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 103). Pacific argues that 

the Court lacks both specific and general personal jurisdiction over it because it did not 

purposefully direct its business activities at Arizona, nor does it have a systematic and 

continuous presence in the state. In lieu of filing a response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 

Leave to Conduct Limited Jurisdictional Discovery Re: Defendant Pacific Urethanes, 

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 107).

“The party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(citing Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1977)). 

“When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff is 

‘obligated to come forward with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal 

jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Amba Marketing Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 

Case 4:15-cv-00002-RM-EJM Document 115 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

787 (9th Cir. 1977)); see also Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 

2006). “If the district court decides the motion without an evidentiary hearing . . . ‘then 

the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of the jurisdictional facts.’” Boschetto 

v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 

1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990). “Uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint must 

be taken as true” and “‘[c]onflicts between the parties over statements contained in 

affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.’” Id. (quoting Schwarzenegger v. Fred 

Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)). However, “[t]he mere allegations 

of a complaint, when contradicted by affidavits, are not enough to confer personal 

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” Chem Lab Products, Inc. v. Stepanek, 554 

F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 

639 (9th Cir. 1967)). 

“A court may permit discovery to aid in determining whether it has in personam 

jurisdiction.” Data Tech, 557 F.2d at 1285 n. 1 (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo 

Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 n. 24 (9th Cir. 1977)). “‘[W]here a plaintiff’s claim of 

personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the 

face of specific denials made by the defendants, the Court need not permit even limited 

discovery . . .’” Terracom v. Valley Nat. Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 

Rich v. KIS Cal., Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254, 259 (M.D.N.C. 1988)). However, “[d]iscovery 

may be appropriately granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction 

are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Data 

Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285 n. 1. 

Here, Plaintiff contends that he needs additional time to conduct limited 

jurisdictional discovery before responding to Pacific’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff states 

that his products liability claim against Pacific is based on Pacific’s alleged 

manufacturing of defective foam that was used in the foam pit at Get Air Tucson. 

Plaintiff further states that, based on Quality Foam & Fiber Products, Inc.’s initial 

disclosure, “it seems that the order for the foam blocks was made by Val Iverson, the 

Case 4:15-cv-00002-RM-EJM Document 115 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

owner of the Get Air venture, to or through Quality, and that Quality then contracted with 

Pacific for the foam material.” (Doc. 107 at 3). Plaintiff urges the Court to allow him 

time “to conduct discovery aimed specifically at the contentions contained in Mr. 

Nance’s [the president of Pacific] affidavit,” wherein Mr. Nance alleges that Pacific has 

had limited business dealings with Arizona and had no knowledge that its foam was 

going to be used at Get Air Tucson. Id. at 4. Plaintiff intends to depose both Mr. Nance 

and “a representative from Quality who would have the most knowledge about this order 

for foam blocks made by Val Iverson,” and also states that it may be necessary to depose 

Mr. Iverson, depending on what information is gleaned from the other two depositions. 

Id. at 4–5. In response to Pacific’s claims that Plaintiff does not explain what specific 

jurisdictional facts he needs to discover, Plaintiff states that he will “investigate the 

business dealings and contact Pacific has had with Arizona, as well as what Pacific (not 

just Mr. Nance) knew or should have known about the intended use of the foam material 

it manufactured upon the order of Quality and Mr. Iverson.” (Doc. 111 at 6). 

While the contacts between Pacific and Arizona appear to be attenuated, the Court 

finds that further discovery should establish one way or another whether the foam 

produced by Pacific fortuitously made its way to Arizona, or was purposely directed to 

the state. The Court therefore concludes that limited discovery, narrowly tailored to the 

issue of Pacific’s contacts with Arizona, is appropriate in this case. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct 

Limited Jurisdictional Discovery Re: Defendant Pacific Urethanes, LLC’s Motion to 

Dismiss. (Doc. 107). Plaintiff may depose Mr. Nance, a representative of Quality Foam 

& Fiber Products, Inc., and Val Iverson. Plaintiff shall have 120 days, up to and including 

October 10, 2016, to conduct this jurisdictional discovery and file his response to 

Defendant Pacific Urethanes, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss.

. . .

. . . 

Case 4:15-cv-00002-RM-EJM Document 115 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated this 10th day of June, 2016.

Case 4:15-cv-00002-RM-EJM Document 115 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 4