Plaintiff entitled to jurisdictional discovery of non-resident entity only if he/she can advance plausible assertion of personal jurisdiction.

The defendant, a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in China, sold its product to an independent distributor in China who then arranged shipment from China to some U.S. locations, not including Delaware. The plaintiff’s incident and alleged harm from the product occurred in Delaware, and suit was filed in Delaware. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the Delaware court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter judgment against it. Delaware law recognizes dual jurisdiction where there is a showing that: (1) there is an intent or purpose on the part of the defendant to serve the Delaware market; and (2) the intent or purpose results in the introduction of the product to Delaware and plaintiff’s cause of action arises from injuries caused by that product. In this case, the court found that, while the plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to suggest dual jurisdiction, the defendant’s sworn affidavit suggested a potential factual predicate for dual jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted the plaintiff’s request to conduct limited discovery, consisting of written questions, reminding the plaintiff that a fishing expedition was impermissible.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 2017}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}