United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
DAVID A. KING, Plaintiff,
TIMBER RIDGE TRADING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant.
W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, (DE 11), and defendant’s motion to
dismiss, (DE 16). The issues raised have been fully briefed
and in this posture are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that
follow, the court denies as moot plaintiff’s motion and
grants defendant’s motion.
OF THE CASE
proceeding pro se, initiated the present action by filing
complaint on January 11, 2019, asserting claims for breach of
express and implied warranties as well as failure to warn,
regarding a wood-cutting blade bought online by plaintiff
allegedly from defendant through Amazon.com Services, Inc.
February 18, 2019, the court allowed defendant’s motion
for extension of time to respond to complaint, extending the
deadline for defendant to file responsive pleading up to and
including March 18, 2019. On February 26, 2019, plaintiff
filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the
court’s February 19, 2019, order.
March 5, 2019, summons was issued. (See DE
On March 18, 2019, defendant filed its motion to dismiss,
arguing in part that dismissal is proper under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(2) because neither North
Carolina statutes nor principles of due process provide this
court with personal jurisdiction over
OF THE FACTS
facts alleged in complaint relevant to the resolution of the
instant motions are as follows. Plaintiff alleges that on
October 20, 2018, he purchased a “wood-cutting blade .
. . from Defendant on Amazon.com.” (Compl. (DE 1)
¶ 6). Plaintiff alleges he was injured the next day when
he attempted to use the product. (Id. ¶ 2-5,
7). Plaintiff alleges that defendant is liable for his
injuries because of representations he read online about the
product that promised no “No Kick-Back” and other
representations about the use and properties of the blade.
(Id. ¶ 6).
Standard of Review
12(b)(2) allows for dismissal of a claim for lack of personal
jurisdiction. “When a district court considers a
question of personal jurisdiction based on the contents of a
complaint and supporting affidavits, the plaintiff has the
burden of making a prima facie showing in support of its
assertion of jurisdiction.” Universal Leather, LLC
v. Koro AR, S.A., 773 F.3d 553, 558 (4th Cir. 2014). At
this stage, the court “must construe all relevant
pleading allegations in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable
inferences for the existence of jurisdiction.”
Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir.1989);
see Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60
(4th Cir.1993) (“[T]he district court must draw all
reasonable inferences arising from the proof, and resolve all
factual disputes, in the plaintiff’s favor.”).
lawful assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant
requires satisfying the standards of the forum state’s
long-arm statute and respecting the safeguards enshrined in
the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
Tire Eng’g & Distribution, LLC v. Shandong
Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292, 301 (4th Cir. 2012).
Where, as here, “North Carolina’s long-arm
statute is construed to extend jurisdiction over nonresident
defendants to the full extent permitted by the Due Process
Clause, . . . the dual jurisdictional requirements collapse
into a single inquiry” into whether personal
jurisdiction comports with due process. Christian Sci.
Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v.
Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir. 2001).
process inquiry “can be undertaken through two
different approaches – by finding specific jurisdiction
. . . or by finding general jurisdiction.” ALS
Scan, Inc. v. ...