Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MMCA GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-7067 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE BRI’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; GRANTING MMCA’S

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL

DISCOVERY; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 181)

Before the Court is defendant Business Risks International, Ltd.’s (“BRI”) motion,

filed August 2, 2007, to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction,

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff MMCA Group,

Ltd. (“MMCA”) has filed opposition to the motion, to which BRI has replied. Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds

this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby

VACATES the September 7, 2007 hearing.

For the reasons set forth in MMCA’s opposition, the Court finds MMCA is entitled to

take jurisdictional discovery on the issue of whether BRI is the alter ego or agent of

Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations, Inc. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo

Express Co., 556 F.2d 406, 430 (9th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation and citation omitted)

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 194 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

(holding discovery “should be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of

jurisdiction are controverted . . . or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is

necessary”); see also Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements, Ltd., 328

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding plaintiff entitled to take jurisdictional discovery with

respect to alter ego and agency theories where plaintiff submitted evidence that one

company was wholly owned by another and both companies shared officers and office

space).

Accordingly, BRI’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED without prejudice to BRI’s

filing a new motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, once jurisdictional discovery

has been completed. The Court declines to address the parties’ arguments as to whether

plaintiff must comply with the Hague Convention in propounding discovery to BRI; such

issue may be addressed by separate motion to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen, the

magistrate judge to whom all discovery disputes have been referred.

This order terminates Docket No. 181. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 194 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2