Court Opinion

ID: 9402690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 16:06:56.535675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.005136
License: Public Domain

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

      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

                                             -2-
                              MILLER V. LG CHEM, LTD.

                                  Opinion of the Court

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.

                                          -3-