UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

B.B., a minor, by and )

Through his mother and next friend, )

OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.:

) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT

v. )

)

PAWN CITY, INC.; NORINCO )

a/k/a CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES )

COPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW defendant Qiqihar Hawk Industries Co. Ltd., pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and moves this Court to dismiss Qiqihar 

Hawk for lack of jurisdiction over the person. In support thereof, Qiqihar Hawk submits 

the Declaration of Wu Riuhuan, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In further support, Qiqihar 

Hawk would show the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff brings suit against Qiqihar Hawk, alleging that he injured himself 

while using a shotgun that he claims Qiqihar Hawk manufactured. Qiqihar Hawk did not, 

however, manufacture or sell the shotgun at issue, and this Court does not have in 

personam jurisdiction over Qiqihar Hawk. The Complaint is therefore due to be 

dismissed.

2. To demonstrate personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish that such 

jurisdiction would comport with Alabama’s Long-Arm Provision and the requirements of 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 5
2

Since Alabama’s Long-Arm Provision is coextensive with the limits of the United States 

Constitution, plaintiff must demonstrate that personal jurisdiction over Qiqihar Hawk 

meets the requirements of federal due process. This requires that Qiqihar Hawk have 

certain minimal contacts with Alabama and that the exercise of jurisdiction over Qiqihar 

Hawk not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Huey v. 

American Truetzschler Corp., 47 F.Supp.2d 1342, 1346 (M.D. Ala. 1999) quoting 

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 618, 110 S.Ct. 

2105, 2114-15, 109 L.Ed.2d. 631 (1990).

3. Two types of contacts create personal jurisdiction: specific and general.

If Qiqihar Hawk had frequent contacts with Alabama unrelated to this particular 

litigation, general jurisdiction would arise; if Qiqihar Hawk had contacts with Alabama 

related to this particular cause of action, specific jurisdiction would arise. Huey, 47 

F.Supp.2d at 1346. With respect to specific jurisdiction, three things must be shown: (1) 

Qiqihar Hawk’s contact must be related to the fact that plaintiff received possession of 

and injured himself with a shotgun; (2) Qiqihar Hawk must by some act purposefully 

avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Alabama, thus invoking the 

benefits and protections of Alabama’s laws; and (3) those contacts must be such that 

Qiqihar Hawk should reasonably anticipate being hailed into Alabama. Id. at 1346.

4. Specific jurisdiction does not arise because Qiqihar Hawk did not 

manufacture or sell the shotgun at issue. Wu Ruihuan, manager of the Export 

Department for Qiqihar Hawk, testifies by her Declaration that Qiqihar Hawk did not 

manufacture, sell or export the shotgun at issue. (Decl. of Wu Ruihuan ¶ 6.) Although 

Qiqihar Hawk is in the business of designing and manufacturing shotguns, it did not 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 5
3

manufacture or sell shotguns from 1997 to 2003. (Id. ¶ 3-4.) The company’s production 

was suspended during that period of time, as explained by Ms. Wu in her Declaration. 

(Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) It was not until 2003 that the Chinese government even permitted Qiqihar 

Hawk to export shotguns. (Id. ¶ 4.) Indeed, the shotgun at issue in this case bears the 

name “Norinco” stamped on the receiver. Shotguns manufactured and sold by Qiqihar 

Hawk for export to the United States do not bear the name “Norinco”; rather, they have 

the name “Hawk” inscribed on the receiver. (Id. ¶ 6.) Since Norinco states that it

purchased the shotgun in 1999 and plaintiff’s mother purchased the shotgun in Alabama 

in September 2003, Qiqihar Hawk could not possibly have manufactured or sold the 

shotgun. (Answers of Norinco to Pl.’s Interrog. No. 2, attached hereto as Exh. 2; Compl.

¶ 6.) Indeed, the contract produced by Norinco relating to its purchase of the shotgun 

shows that a company by the name of Heilongjiang Hawk Group Co. Ltd. was the seller 

of the shotgun. (Decl. of Wu ¶ 7.)

5. With respect to general jurisdiction, plaintiff must show that Qiqihar 

Hawk had “continuous and systematic general business contacts” with Alabama. 

Seymour v. Bell Helmet Corporation, 624 F.Supp. 146, 148 (M.D. Ala. 1985) quoting 

Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 

1873, 80 L.Ed.2d. 404 (1984). “The standard for general jurisdiction is more stringent 

than that for specific jurisdiction.” Seymour, 624 F.Supp. at 148 (citation omitted); In re 

Amtrak “Sunset Limited” Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Alabama, on September 22, 1993, 

923 F.Supp. 1524, 1528 (S.D. Ala. 1996) (“A plaintiff has an especially heavy burden in 

seeking to establish general jurisdiction.”). Qiqihar Hawk has no regular direct contact 

with Alabama. (Wu Decl. ¶ 8.) It does not operate a business in Alabama and has not 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 5
4

been licensed or authorized to do so. (Id.) It does not own real property in Alabama, nor 

does it have any bank accounts or offices here. (Id.) It has not advertised here, paid 

taxes here, or had a telephone listing. (Id.) It does not have a post office box or other 

mailing address in Alabama. (Id.) Qiqihar Hawk does not do business with any business 

or person in the State of Alabama. (Id.) Qiqihar Hawk does not export its products to the 

State of Alabama. (Id.) Having no direct, systematic or continuous contact with the State 

of Alabama, Qiqihar Hawk is not subject to the general jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot meet his burden of establishing that the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Qiqihar Hawk comports with the fundamental 

requirements of due process. See, Brannon v. Finance America, LLC, 2007 WL 495780, 

*2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 15, 2007) (noting that plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that 

the exercise of personal jurisdiction is appropriate).

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, Qiqihar Hawk moves this Court to 

dismiss the Complaint of plaintiff against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Todd M. Higey

Todd M. Higey

Ala. Bar No. HIG019

Attorney for Qiqihar Hawk 

Industries Co. Ltd.

ADAMS AND REESE LLP

2100 3rd Avenue North, Suite 1100

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-3367

Telephone: (205) 250-5000

Fax: (205) 250-5034

E-mail: todd.higey@arlaw.com

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 12, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 

to the persons listed below:

David J. Hodge, Esq.

PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C.

2001 Park Place North

1100 Park Place Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

James C. Barton, Jr., Esq.

Alan D. Mathis, Esq.

JOHNSTON, BARTON, PROCTOR & POWELL, LLP

2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Nick Wooten, Esq.

WOOTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.

P.O. Drawer 290

Lafayette, Alabama 36862

John D. Gleissner, Esq.

ROGERS & ASSOCIATES

3000 Riverchase Galleria

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35244

/s/Todd M. Higey

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 6 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 7 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 8 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 9 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 10 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 11 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 12 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 13 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 14 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 15 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 16 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 17 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 18 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 19 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 20 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 21 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 22 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 23 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 24 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 25 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 26 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 27 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 28 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 29 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 30 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 31 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 32 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 33 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 34 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 35 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 36 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 37 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 38 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 39 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 40 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 41 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 42 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 43 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 44 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 45 of 45
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 6 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 7 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 8 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 9 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 10 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 11 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 12 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 13 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 14 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 15 of 16
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 37-3 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 16 of 16