IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 69A22

Filed 16 June 2023

ERIC MILLER

v.

LG CHEM, LTD., LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., FOGGY BOTTOM VAPES, LLC, 

CHAD & JACLYNN DABBS d/b/a SWEET TEA’S VAPE LOUNGE, DOE 

DEFENDANTS 1-10

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, 281 N.C. App. 531 (2022), affirming an order entered on 20 

April 2020 by Judge Michael J. O’Foghludha in Superior Court, Durham County. 

Heard in the Supreme Court on 25 April 2023.

Gupta Wessler PLLC, by Deepak Gupta, pro hac vice, and Robert D. Friedman, 

pro hac vice; and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC, by Sara Willingham, Stuart 

M. Paynter, Celeste H.G. Boyd, and David D. Larson Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, by Christopher J. Derrenbacher and 

Wendy S. Dowse, pro hac vice, for defendants-appellees LG Chem, Ltd. and LG 

Chem America, Inc.

Abrams & Abrams, P.A., by Noah Abrams; Miller Law Group, by W. Stacy 

Miller II; and Schwaba Law Firm, by Andrew J. Schwaba for North Carolina 

Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Eric Miller appealed from a divided decision of the Court of Appeals

which affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against Defendants 

LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.
MILLER V. LG CHEM, LTD.

Opinion of the Court

-2-

The trial court entered that dismissal order without ruling on plaintiff’s 

motions to compel. Those motions sought responses to multiple discovery requests 

concerning the LG defendants’ contacts with North Carolina.

On this issue, the Court of Appeals majority held that plaintiff “did not allege 

facts to support assertion of jurisdiction over LG Chem or LG America” and, 

therefore, further “jurisdictional discovery was not warranted.” Miller v. LG Chem, 

Ltd., 281 N.C. App. 531, 540 (2022). The dissent asserted that the court should 

“remand the matter to the trial court to consider whether further jurisdictional 

discovery is warranted” in light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 

S. Ct. 1017 (2021). Miller, 281 N.C. App. at 555 (Inman, J., dissenting).

The Supreme Court of the United States decided the Ford case after the trial 

court entered its order. The decision clarified the proper standard for the “relating to” 

prong of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis employed by the trial court in this 

case. Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1026–28.

The decision to permit jurisdictional discovery is left to the sound discretion of 

the trial court. Azure Dolphin, LLC v. Barton, No. 16 CVS 7622, 2017 NCBC 88, ¶ 29

(N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2017), aff’d, 371 N.C. 579 (2018). To engage in meaningful 

appellate review of this discretionary decision, we must be confident that the trial 

court applied the appropriate legal standard in the exercise of that discretion. See, 

e.g., State v. Campbell, 369 N.C. 599, 604 (2017). Because the trial court did not 

provide any reasons for the implied denial of plaintiff’s requests for further 
MILLER V. LG CHEM, LTD.

Opinion of the Court

-3-

jurisdictional discovery, we cannot be certain that the court applied an analysis 

consistent with Ford. Moreover, it is possible that additional discovery would lead the 

trial court to make new or additional findings of fact that could bear on the court’s 

jurisdictional analysis and our appellate review.

We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this 

matter to the Court of Appeals with instructions to vacate the trial court’s order and 

remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the plaintiff’s discovery motions in 

light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) and this 

Court’s recent precedent in Schaeffer v. SingleCare Holdings, LLC, 384 N.C. 102 

(2023); Toshiba Glob. Commerce Sols., Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC, 381 N.C. 

692 (2022); and Mucha v. Wagner, 378 N.C. 167 (2021).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.