1 FILED IN THE 2 EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON Oct 26, 2022 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 BEAU ARMSTRONG, No. 1:22-cv-03007-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GETINGE AB’S MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 10 ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION, GETINGE AB, and MAQUET ECF No. 18 11 CARDIOVASCULAR US SALES LLC,
12 Defendants.
13 Before the Court is Defendant Getinge AB’s (“Getinge”) Motion to Dismiss 14 for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, ECF No. 18. The Court has reviewed the motion 15 and the record and is fully informed. For the reasons stated below, the Court 16 grants Defendant Getinge’s motion. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff underwent hernia repair surgery in 2018. ECF No. 1 at 8. 19 Plaintiff’s surgeon implanted ProLite, a polypropylene surgical mesh, into 20 Plaintiff’s abdomen. ECF No. 1 at 6, 8. Approximately two years later, Plaintiff’s 1 hernia reoccurred, and he underwent revision surgery. ECF No. 1 at 8. Plaintiff 2 alleges that the reoccurrence and other injuries he suffered are the result of the
3 insertion of the ProLite mesh. ECF No. 1 at 2, 8-9. Plaintiff brings suit against 4 Defendants Getinge, Atrium Medical Corporation (“Atrium”), and Maquet 5 Cardiovascular US Sales, LLC (“Maquet”), related corporations,1 alleging against
6 each various tort claims and a contract claim under the Washington Products 7 Liability Act (“WPLA”) for each Defendant’s alleged role in designing, 8 manufacturing, and distributing the ProLite mesh. ECF No. 1 at 2, 9-10. 9 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
10 On May 9, 2022, Defendants Atrium and Maquet filed a joint Motion to 11 Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 15. Plaintiff filed a response on May 27, 12
14 1 Defendant Getinge wholly owns Getinge Holding USA, Inc. (“Holding USA”). 15 ECF No. 20 at 2. Holding USA wholly owns Getinge Holding USA II, Inc. 16 (“Holding USA II”). ECF No. 20 at 2. Holding USA II wholly owns Datascope 17 Corporation. ECF No. 20 at 2. Datascope Corporation wholly owns Defendant 18 Atrium. In 2011, Defendant Getinge acquired Defendant Atrium through 19 Datascope Corporation. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 20 at 2; ECF No. 32 at 5.
20 Defendant Getinge also wholly owns Defendant Maquet. ECF No. 1 at 3. 1 2022. ECF No. 21.2 On May 25, 2022, Defendant Getinge filed the instant 2 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff failed
3 to respond. On September 1, 2022, the Court conducted a hearing on the motions. 4 At the hearing, Plaintiff orally requested leave to file an untimely response to 5 Defendant Getinge’s Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted. ECF No. 28.
6 Plaintiff filed his opposition to the instant motion on September 8, 2022. ECF No. 7 32. Defendant Getinge filed its reply on September 15, 2022. ECF No. 33. 8 LEGAL STANDARDS 9 “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their
10 jurisdiction over persons.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014) 11 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)) (analyzing personal jurisdiction over corporate 12 entity Daimler AG). “Where, [as in this matter], there is no applicable federal
13 statute governing personal jurisdiction, the law of the state in which the district 14 court sits applies.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 15 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1). “Washington’s long- 16 arm statute authorizes courts to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to
17 the extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution.” 18
19 2 The Court addresses Defendant Atrium and Maquet’s Motion to Dismiss under 20 Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 15, by separate order. 1 MBM Fisheries Inc. v. Bollinger Mach. Shop and Shipyard, Inc., 804 P.2d 627, 2 632 (Wash. 1991) (citing Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 783 P.2d 78 (Wash.
3 1989)). Therefore, a district court sitting in Washington “need only determine 4 whether personal jurisdiction in th[e] case would meet the requirements of due 5 process.” Harris Rutsky, 328 F.3d at 1129 (quoting Brainerd v. Governors of the
6 Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989)). “The Due Process Clause 7 limits a state’s power to exercise control over a nonresident defendant.” LNS 8 Enterprises LLC v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 858 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 9 Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014)). “[D]ue process necessitates that a
10 nonresident defendant have ‘certain minimum contacts’ with a forum state before 11 that state can exercise personal jurisdiction over that individual or entity.” Id. 12 (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). “The forum state
13 can exercise personal jurisdiction if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the 14 state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of 15 fair play and substantial justice.’” Id. (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 283). 16 The Supreme Court has long recognized two types of personal jurisdiction:
17 general and specific. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 18 915, 919 (2011) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 19 U.S. 408, 414, nn. 8, 9 (1984)). “Each depends on the quantity and quality of
20 contacts that the defendant has with the state.” LNS Enterprises, 22 F.4th at 859. 1 “A court has general jurisdiction over a defendant only when the defendant’s 2 contacts with the forum state are so ‘continuous and systematic as to render [them]
3 essentially at home in the forum State.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 4 Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 127). “Th[is] standard is met only by ‘continuous 5 corporate operations within a state [that are] thought so substantial and of such a
6 nature as to justify suit against [the defendant] on causes of action arising from 7 dealings entirely distinct from those activities.’” King v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 8 632 F.3d 570, 579 (9th Cir. 2011) (second and third alterations in original) 9 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 318). “This is an exacting standard . . .
10 because a finding of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court 11 in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world.” 12 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004).
13 Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, “covers defendants that are less intimately 14 connected with a state, but that have sufficient minimum contacts with the state 15 that are relevant to the lawsuit.” LNS Enterprises, 22 F.4th at 859. The Ninth 16 Circuit has established a three-part test to determine if a nonresident defendant has
17 sufficient minimum contacts to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction: 18 19 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or 20 perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the 1 privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; 2 (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and 3 (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. 4 Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th 5 Cir. 1987)). 6 When a defendant alleges the lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff 7 who “bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate.” Id. at 8 800. When a defendant’s motion to dismiss relies only on written materials, as in 9 this case, “the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional 10 facts.” Id. (quoting Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir. 1990)). A 11 district court “must determine whether [a plaintiff’s] pleadings and affidavits 12 establish a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. 13 Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1286 (9th Cir. 1977). A plaintiff cannot make the 14 requisite showing by relying solely on the “bare allegations of [his or her] 15 complaint.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800 (quoting Amba Marketing Systems, 16 Inc. v. Jobar International, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977)). If the 17 defendant does not dispute an allegation in the complaint, the allegation is taken as 18 true. Id. If any conflict exists between the parties’ evidence, the court must 19 resolve it in the plaintiff’s favor. AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 20 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). 1 ANALYSIS 2 Defendant Getinge, the parent company of both Defendant Atrium and
3 Defendant Maquet, moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting the 4 Court lacks general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction over it 5 and may not pierce the corporate veil to impute to it the actions of its wholly
6 owned subsidiary, Defendant Atrium. ECF No. 18. 7 A. General Jurisdiction 8 Defendant Getinge is a Swedish corporation. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 18 at 9 5. Its principal place of business is in Sweden. ECF No. 18 at 5. In his response,
10 Plaintiff appears to argue that, despite its foreign status, Defendant Getinge is at 11 home in Washington. See ECF No. 32 at 5. 12 “To determine whether [Defendant Getinge’s] contacts are sufficiently
13 substantial, continuous, and systematic,” in Washington to render it “at home,” the 14 Court considers the company’s “‘[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, economic 15 impact, physical presence, and integration into the state’s regulatory or economic 16 markets.’” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th Cir.
17 2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 18 19
20 1 Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)).3 Plaintiff fails to address these factors 2 with respect to Defendant Getinge’s activities.
3 Plaintiff provides the following information about Defendant Getinge’s 4 business activities: 5 Defendant Getinge . . . is a Swedish corporation doing business in the United States. Getinge is a pharmaceutical company involved in the 6 research, development, testing, manufacture, production, distribution, marketing, promotion and/or sale of medical devices used for hernia 7 repair, including ProLite polypropylene mesh.
8 ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff provides no information in the Complaint, Opposition to 9 Defendant Getinge’s Motion to Dismiss, or supporting documents as to how long 10 Defendant Getinge is purported to have been operating in Washington, or if such a 11 time has been continuous. Nor does Plaintiff provide information as to 12 Defendant’s economic impact, physical presence, and integration into 13 Washington’s regulatory or economic markets. Plaintiff does not indicate what 14
15 3 It is the rare case in which general personal jurisdiction is proper over a foreign 16 corporation which does not have its principal place of business in the jurisdiction 17 in which the lawsuit is filed. See Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 18 437 (1952) (holding Ohio courts could exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign 19 corporation due to the extent and nature of the temporary operations in the state,
20 finding such business activity was continuous and systematic). 1 volume of products, if any, Defendant Getinge provides directly to consumers in 2 Washington. Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of the factors the Court is to
3 consider. Instead, Plaintiff focuses on whether Defendant Getinge may or may not 4 have a business address in New Jersey. ECF No. 32 at 6, 11. This is irrelevant to 5 whether this Court, sitting in Washington, may exercise personal jurisdiction over
6 Getinge as a Swedish corporation with its principal place of business in Sweden. 7 Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence regarding Defendant Getinge’s 8 business activities in Washington. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to 9 establish a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts with respect to general
10 personal jurisdiction. 11 B. Specific Jurisdiction 12 1. Minimum Contacts
13 Analysis of the first prong of the Ninth Circuit’s three-part test to determine 14 whether the non-resident has sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state can 15 differ depending on the underlying claim. Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1212 16 (9th Cir. 2015). As set forth by the Ninth Circuit, a contract or contract-based
17 claim is analyzed under the purposeful availment test while a tort claim is analyzed 18 under the purposeful direction test. Id. Plaintiff raises both contract and tort 19 claims. ECF No. 1 at 2, 9-10; see RCW § 7.72 et seq.; RCW § 62A et seq. As
20 mentioned above, “[P]laintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of 1 the test.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. “[P]ersonal jurisdiction is not 2 established in the forum state” if Plaintiff fails to meet his burden. Id.
3 a. Purposeful Availment 4 The Ninth Circuit has stated, “[a] showing that a defendant purposefully 5 availed [itself] of the privilege of doing business in a forum state typically consists
6 of evidence of the defendant’s actions in the forum, such as executing or 7 performing a contract there.” Id. Plaintiff contends Defendant Getinge is “a 8 pharmaceutical company involved in the research, development, testing, 9 manufacture, production, distribution, marketing, promotion and/or sale of medical
10 devices used for hernia repair, including ProLite polypropylene mesh.” ECF No. 1 11 at 2. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how any of these purported business activities 12 affect Washington. As noted above, Plaintiff provides no evidence in the
13 Complaint, Opposition to Defendant Getinge’s Motion to Dismiss, or supporting 14 documents regarding Defendant Getinge’s actions in Washington. 15 Plaintiff asserts Defendant Getinge is “doing business in the United States.” 16 ECF No. 1 at 2. This is not sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden. In his response,
17 Plaintiff directs the Court’s attention to “advertising, sales, and educational 18 documents” in which Defendant Getinge “has represented that it does business as 19 ‘Getinge Group’ which has a New Jersey business address.” ECF No. 32 at 6.
20 However, as stated above, Defendant Getinge’s alleged shared business address in 1 New Jersey is irrelevant to whether this Court may properly exercise personal 2 jurisdiction over Defendant Getinge. Indeed, Plaintiff has provided the Court with
3 no evidence of Defendant Getinge’s actions in Washington. Accordingly, Plaintiff 4 has failed to make the requisite showing that Defendant Getinge purposefully 5 availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Washington, and personal
6 jurisdiction has not been established with respect to Plaintiff’s contract claim. 7 b. Purposeful Direction 8 To show a defendant purposefully directed its conduct toward a specific 9 state, a plaintiff “usually [produces] evidence of the defendant’s actions outside the
10 forum state that are directed at the forum, such as the distribution in the forum state 11 of goods originating elsewhere.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 803 (citing Keeton 12 v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774–75 (1984)). Plaintiff has alleged
13 Defendant Getinge “purposefully directed its marketing, sales, and distribution of 14 numerous pharmaceutical and/or healthcare products to Washington.” ECF No. 1 15 at 3; see ECF No. 32 at 5. However, Plaintiff produces no evidence to support the 16 Complaint’s bare allegation. The fact that ProLite, which was designed by
17 Defendant Atrium, ECF No. 1 at 6-7, and distributed by Defendant Maquet, ECF 18 No. 1 at 3—both of which are wholly-owned by Defendant Getinge, ECF No. 1 at 19 2, 3—ended up in the stream of commerce in Washington and was subsequently
20 used in Plaintiff’s 2018 surgery is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. 1 Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir. 2007) 2 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987)) (“The
3 placement of a product into the stream of commerce, without more, is not an act 4 purposefully directed toward a forum state.”). Indeed, Plaintiff has provided the 5 Court with no evidence of Defendant Getinge’s purported purposeful marketing,
6 sales, or distribution of any product in Washington, let alone ProLite. 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing that Defendant 8 Getinge purposefully directed its conduct toward Washington. Personal 9 jurisdiction has not been established with respect to Plaintiff’s tort claims.
10 2. Piercing the Corporate Veil
11 In the Complaint and in his Opposition to Defendant Getinge’s Motion to 12 Dismiss, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Getinge should be held responsible for the 13 14 15 16
17 18 19
20 1 actions of Defendant Atrium, Defendant Getinge’s wholly owned subsidiary.4 2 Plaintiff also argues that this Court should impute the contacts of Defendant
3 Atrium to Defendant Getinge and exert specific personal jurisdiction over 4 Defendant Getinge. ECF No. 32 at 8 (“[T]his Court may properly exercise 5 personal jurisdiction over Getinge because it became the specification developer
6 and manufacturer of ProLite mesh when it acquired Atrium in 2011.”). 7 Before the Court can determine whether to pierce the corporate veil, the 8 Court must first determine what law applies. “A federal court sitting in diversity 9 applies the substantive law of the state[.]” Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 30 F.4th
10 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship, 634 F.3d 11
12 4 For example, in the section, “Defendants’ ProLite Mesh,” the title of which 13 implies that ProLite is designed, manufactured, and distributed, by all three 14 defendants, Plaintiff details the history of solely Defendant Atrium’s development 15 of ProLite. ECF No. 1 at 6-7. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Maquet is 16 the sole distributor of ProLite, ECF No. 1 at 3; ECF No. 32 at 9, but subsequently
17 asserts all three defendants “intentionally proceeded with the manufacture, sale, 18 distribution, marketing of ProLite.” (emphasis added) ECF No. 1 at 11; see ECF 19 No. 32 at 7-8. Plaintiff fails to distinguish the alleged actions of each defendant,
20 and instead lumps the three corporations together throughout his vague allegations. 1 524, 530 (9th Cir. 2011)). Defendant Getinge argues that, under the “internal 2 affairs doctrine,” which applies the law of the state of incorporation, Delaware law
3 should apply in this case because Defendant Atrium is incorporated in Delaware. 4 ECF No. 18 at 8-9; ECF No. 20 at 2. Both parties agree that the Washington 5 Supreme Court has not recognized the internal affairs doctrine. ECF No. 18 at 8-9;
6 ECF No. 32 at 10. However, Defendant Getinge contends that at least one 7 Washington Court has used the doctrine and certain federal courts have anticipated 8 that the Washington Supreme Court would accept the doctrine. ECF No. 18 at 9. 9 In contrast, Plaintiff contends that Washington law applies given the Washington
10 Supreme Court has not adopted the internal affairs doctrine. ECF No. 32 at 9-10. 11 The Court need not decide which law applies because Plaintiff cannot meet his 12 burden to show that piercing the corporate veil is appropriate under either
13 Washington or Delaware law. 14 “A parent corporation may be liable when state law supports piercing the 15 corporate veil.” Minton v. Ralston Purina Co., 47 P.3d 556, 562 (Wash. 2002) 16 (citing United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 55 (1998)). Under Washington
17 law, Plaintiff “must demonstrate that the corporate form was used to violate or 18 evade a duty, and that it must be disregarded to prevent loss to an innocent party.” 19 Washington Water Jet Workers Ass’n v. Yarbrough, 90 P.3d 42, 58 (Wash. 2004).
20 To pierce the corporate veil and reach Defendant Getinge, Plaintiff must show 1 Defendant Getinge overtly intended “to disregard the corporate entity in order to 2 avoid a duty owed to [Plaintiff].” Minton, 47 P.3d. at 562 (citing Morgan v. Burks,
3 611 P.2d 751 (Wash. 1980)). The “[m]ere common ownership of stock, the same 4 officers, employees, etc., does not justify disregarding the separate corporate 5 identities unless a fraud is being worked upon a third person.” Garibay v. Komatsu
6 Ltd., 134 F. App’x 164 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added) (quoting Rena-Ware 7 Distribs., Inc. v. State, 463 P.2d 622, 625 (Wash. 1970)) (not reported). The 8 requirement to pierce the corporate veil under Delaware law is essentially 9 identical.5
11 5 “[A]nalogous to veil piercing, the alter ego theory requires that the corporate 12 structure cause fraud or similar injustice.” Outokumpu Eng’g Enterprises, Inc. v. 13 Kvaerner EnviroPower, Inc., 685 A.2d 724, 729 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996) (listing 14 cases). A parent-subsidiary relationship, alone, does not support alter ego liability, 15 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Films, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 260, 271 n.15 (D. Del. 1989), 16 so long as the parent company does not have “exclusive domination and control . .
17 . to the point that [the subsidiary] no longer ha[s] legal or independent significance 18 of [its] own.”. Outokumpu, 685 A.2d at 729 n.2. Said another way, the “injustice” 19 must be “an abus[e of] the corporate form to effect a fraud.” Outokumpu, 685
20 A.2d at 729. 1 Defendant Getinge wholly owns Defendant Atrium. While the corporations 2 are related, they are not intrinsically bound. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 20 at 2. As
3 set forth in the declaration of Chad Carlton, Defendant Getinge is removed from 4 Defendant Atrium’s day-to-day activities. ECF No. 20 at 2-5. Defendant Atrium 5 maintains its own officers and board of directors. ECF No. 20 at 2. Defendant
6 Atrium maintains separate and independent bylaws and financial records from 7 Defendant Getinge. ECF No. 20 at 3. Defendant Atrium “is responsible for the 8 research, development, design, testing, manufacturing, producing, packing, 9 warnings, instructions, and labeling of [ProLite].” ECF No. 20 at 3. Defendant
10 Atrium is independently responsible for acquiring FDA authorization of its 11 products, and it was the entity that obtained authorization for ProLite from the 12 FDA. ECF No. 20 at 3. Defendant Atrium has its own employees, which it pays
13 from accounts held independently from that of Defendant Getinge. ECF No. 20 at 14 3-4. Defendant Atrium also enters into its own contracts and business agreements 15 for which it does not need prior approval from Defendant Getinge unless such a 16 contract or agreement surpasses a certain financial threshold. ECF No. 20 at 4.
17 The majority of Defendant Atrium’s contracts or agreements do not require 18 Defendant Getinge’s approval. ECF No. 20 at 4. 19 Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence contradicting the declarations of
20 Chad Carlton. Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant Getinge overtly 1 intended to disregard its corporate entity in order to avoid a duty owed to Plaintiff. 2 Even if there was enough overlap between Defendant Atrium and Defendant
3 Getinge’s business activities, which there is not, there is not a viable fraud claim as 4 to meet Washington’s requirements to pierce the corporate veil. Plaintiff is unable 5 to meet his burden under Washington law. Thus, the Court cannot impute
6 Defendant Atrium’s contacts upon Defendant Getinge, rendering the Court unable 7 to exert specific jurisdiction over Defendant Getinge. 8 C. Jurisdictional Discovery 9 “Jurisdictional discovery ‘should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts
10 bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more 11 satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.’” LNS Enterprises LLC, 22 F.4th at 12 864 (quoting Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)).
13 Jurisdictional discovery should not be granted, however, on a plaintiff’s “hunch 14 that [discovery] might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts.” Id. (alteration in 15 original) (quoting Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008)). 16 Additionally, jurisdictional discovery is not appropriate when a plaintiff’s “bare
17 allegations” are expressly rebutted. Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 18 562 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any facts tying 19 Defendant Getinge to Plaintiff’s alleged harm except as Defendants Atrium and
20 Maquet’s parent company. This is not enough to meet the requisite showing to 1 pierce the corporate veil as discussed above. Nor is it enough to allow Plaintiff to 2 go on a fact-finding mission to establish personal jurisdiction as Defendant Getinge
3 specifically denies Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional 4 discovery is denied. 5 CONCLUSION
6 Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden to establish the Court has general or 7 specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant Getinge. Plaintiff has also failed to 8 meet the burden to establish that the Court can pierce the corporate veil and impute 9 Defendant Atrium’s contacts upon Defendant Getinge in order for the Court to
10 exert specific jurisdiction over Defendant Getinge. Additionally, Plaintiff’s factual 11 allegations are facially insufficient for the Court to permit him jurisdictional 12 discovery.
13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 14 1. Defendant Getinge AB’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, 15 ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. Defendant Getinge AB shall be DISMISSED from this 16 action.
20 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this 2 Order, provide copies to counsel, and TERMINATE Defendant Getinge AB as a
3 defendant in this action. 4 DATED October 26, 2022. 5 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16