Opinion ID: 1656471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdictional Discovery

Text: Case contends that Troncalli is not entitled to mandamus relief, because, he insists, the trial court could have properly denied the motion to dismiss to allow [Case] to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Case's brief, at 22. He argues that, because the only basis for a finding that Troncalli does not do business in Alabama is the affidavit testimony of its general manager, he is entitled to probe that testimony with written discovery and depositions. Id. at 25-26. `It is well established that a ... court has the power to require a defendant to respond to discovery requests relevant to his or her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.' Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 236, 241 (N.D.Ind. 1998) (quoting Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 308, 311 (S.D.Ind.1997)). However, it is also well established that a plaintiff does not enjoy an automatic right to discovery pertaining to personal jurisdiction in every case. Id. [T]o be permitted jurisdictional discovery, plaintiff must at least allege facts that would support a colorable claim of jurisdiction. Schenck v. Walt Disney Co., 742 F.Supp. 838, 840 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (emphasis added). See also Ellis v. Fortune Seas, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 308, 312 (S.D.Ind.1997); Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471, 475 (D.Del.1995); Daval Steel Prods. v. M.V. Juraj Dalmatinac, 718 F.Supp. 159, 162 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Rich v. KIS California, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 254, 259 (M.D.N.C.1988). A request for jurisdictional discovery must offer the court more than conjecture and surmise in support of [the] jurisdictional theory. Crist v. Republic of Turkey, 995 F.Supp. 5, 13 (D.D.C.1998). [The] standard is quite low, but a plaintiff's discovery request will nevertheless be denied if it is only based upon `bare,' `attenuated,' or `unsupported' assertions of personal jurisdiction, or when a plaintiff's claim appears to be `clearly frivolous.' Andersen, 179 F.R.D. at 242. Case has failed to satisfy this standard. The allegations of his complaint do not support a colorable claim of [general] jurisdiction. On the contrary, the only jurisdictional allegations are that Troncalli is a foreign corporation doing business in Cumming, Georgia; that Alexander Dodge discovered a vehicle in possession of Troncalli in Georgia; and that Case traveled to Georgia to take possession of the vehicle. A discovery request based on these allegations presents nothing but conjecture and surmise regarding the existence of general jurisdiction, and is, therefore, due to be denied.