The facts alleged in the complaint, which I must accept as true for the purposes of this motion, are as follows.ĭayton Cote was an employee of a non-defendant, Shale Rail, LLC, a subsidiary of Northeast Freight Transfer, Incorporated. is inherently a matter that requires resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings, where in personam jurisdiction actually lies." 9 B. To determine jurisdictional questions, the Court must "accept as true all allegations of jurisdictional fact made by the plaintiff and resolve all factual disputes in the plaintiff's favor." 6 However, that being said, "at no point may a plaintiff rely on the bare pleadings alone in order to withstand a defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction." 7 Once that defense is raised, the plaintiff must sustain its burden by establishing jurisdictional facts through sworn affidavits, testimony or other qualified evidence. "In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), `must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true and construe disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff.'" 3 "Although plaintiffs bear the ultimate burden of proving personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, such a showing is unnecessary at the preliminary stages of litigation." 4 "Rather, plaintiffs must merely allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction over the person." 5 Motion to Dismiss Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) DISCUSSION: Defendant Schnell's Motion to Dismiss A. 2 For the reasons that follow, Defendant Silica's motion will be granted, and Defendant Schnell's motion will be granted in part and denied in part I will provide leave for the parties to engage in jurisdictional discovery Cote will be directed to file an amended complaint. Two pending motions were also transferred to this Court - Defendant Schnell's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and (6) 1 and Defendant Silica's Motion for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
The action was originally filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and later transferred to this Court on July 23, 2018. Silica Company (hereinafter "Silica"), Norfolk Southern Corporation (hereinafter "Norfolk Southern"), Schnell Industries (hereinafter "Schnell"), and FB Industries (hereinafter "FB"). On February 26, 2018, Plaintiff, Dayton Cote, (hereinafter "Cote"), filed a four-count complaint against Defendants, U.S. Montgomery, PION NERONE GIRMAN WINSLOW & SMITH, PC. Sprout, Pion Nerone Girman Winslow & Smith, P.C. Pion, Pion Nerone Girman Winslow & Smith, P.C., Bradley N. Silica Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John T. Schnell Industries, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B.
Norfolk Southern Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Maureen Rowan, Dinsmore & Shohl LLC. Schnell Industries, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant, represented by Maureen Rowan, Dinsmore & Shohl LLC. Silica Company, Defendant, represented by John T.
Dayton Cote, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A.
0 kommentar(er)
