Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—D. Kan.: Motion for discovery denied in products liability case where jurisdictional assertions were speculative and not enough to show existence of controverted facts, (Feb 4, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

A court is within its discretion to deny a motion for discovery where there is a very low probability such discovery will affect the outcome of the case.

A couple that brought a products liability action against two foreign companies, alleging a defect in a dehumidifier they purchased, were denied a motion for additional discovery on the issue of the court’s personal jurisdiction over the companies. Specifically, the couple sought limited discovery on the defendants’ involvement in the transfer of title of the product and contracts for distribution of the dehumidifier, asserting these facts were uniquely within the control of the two companies. However, the federal district court in Kansas held that the couple was not entitled to jurisdictional discovery against the two companies because they failed to include any jurisdictional contentions in their complaint. The couple’s jurisdictional assertions were speculative and not enough to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of controverted facts and the necessity of jurisdictional discovery, the court stated (Huth v. Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 23-4031-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. Jan. 28, 2025)).

Background. A couple brought a products liability case in state court alleging that the malfunction of a dehumidifier caused extensive damage to their personal property. Their complaint made claims of negligence, breach of contract, strict liability, and violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. On April 25, 2023, Midea America Corp. removed the case to federal district court invoking diversity jurisdiction on the grounds that the couple were citizens of Kansas, no defendant was a citizen of the state of Kansas, and the damages originally alleged exceeded the amount in controversy.

The remaining defendants were Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Company and Midea Group Company. Midea Air-Conditioning moved to dismiss, attesting that it had no contacts with Kansas, and its contact with and control of the product ended in Asia when they sold the product to Electrolux. Midea Group also provided an affidavit affirming it did not manufacture or sell any dehumidifier and it had no contact with Kansas in its motion to dismiss. The couple moved for discovery as to Midea Air-Conditioning's contracts of sale, which were exclusively in their control.

Procedural history. In March 2024, the district judge granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for lack of jurisdiction dismissing one party – a subsidiary company – for failure to state a claim and denied the couple’s motion to remand the case back to state court. On the issue of limited jurisdictional discovery as to the subsidiary company, the district judge found that the couple was “merely asking for the opportunity to look for some facts that might controvert Midea America’s facts,” and he concluded “[t]hat’s not enough.”

In November 2024, the couple filed an amended complaint that amended the damages calculation. However, the amended complaint failed to include a jurisdictional statement to its allegations. After the amendment, the two companies filed a second motion to dismiss, and the couple renewed their motion for remand.

The couple then implored the court to permit the conduct of additional discovery to cure the personal jurisdiction issue raised in the second motion to dismiss.

Legal standard for seeing additional discovery. Typically, where a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, either party is allowed discovery on the factual issues raised by the motion. The party seeking jurisdictional discovery holds the burden of demonstrating their legal entitlement to jurisdictional discovery.

The party seeking jurisdictional discovery must demonstrate: (1) there are pertinent facts that bear on the issue of jurisdiction; (2) the facts are controverted; and (3) make a satisfactory showing additional facts are necessary.

The district court must avoid prejudice to the party moving for jurisdictional discovery. However, the court is within its discretion to deny a motion for discovery where there is a very low probability such discovery will affect the outcome of the case. Speculation that defendants hold evidence relevant to the issue of jurisdiction is not enough. The plaintiffs must have a basis to support a finding of jurisdiction through discovery.

Couple’s motion for additional discovery was denied. Because the motion to dismiss asserted that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, the couple sought limited discovery on the issue of the court’s personal jurisdiction over Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Company and Midea Group Company. Specifically, the couple sought their involvement in the transfer of title of the product and contracts for distribution of the dehumidifier in question, asserting these facts were uniquely within the control of the two companies. However, the court noted that the couple’s amended complaint did not allege any jurisdictional facts to support targeted distribution in Kansas or any contracts involving distribution of the product in Kansas. There was simply no jurisdictional statement. The request for limited discovery effectively reiterated the couple’s arguments before the district judge in March 2024 regarding jurisdictional discovery for the subsidiary.

The couple failed to assert controverted facts providing a basis for the court to allow jurisdictional discovery at that time and failed the same here. The two companies also rebutted the assertions of exclusive control stating that the couple was closer to facts of distribution in Kansas, since they knew where they purchased the product.

After review of the parties’ written briefs and their oral arguments during the January 7, 2025, motion hearing, the court found that the couple was not entitled to jurisdictional discovery against the two companies in this matter. While the court was sympathetic to the couple’s quandary, asserting that the facts necessary for jurisdictional argument were exclusively in the possession and control of the defendant companies, such assertions “were notably absent” in their amended complaint.

In their amended complaint, the couple failed to plead any of their jurisdictional contentions to include facts relevant to the transfer of title, distribution, and manufacture of the dehumidifier, or assert knowledge of any Kansas contracts by the defendant companies. The couple neglected to include the relevant contentions they knew, such as where the dehumidifier was purchased. Failure to include any jurisdictional contentions led the court to the conclusion that no controverted facts existed in this matter around personal jurisdiction.

Because the couple failed to establish that the two companies had significant contacts with the Kansas, the court could see no reason to permit jurisdictional discovery, as it was “unlikely to affect the outcome of the case.” Where the couple did not have the facts to controvert the defendant companies’ contentions, they cannot seize the opportunity to go on a fishing expedition for them, the court stated. The couple’s jurisdictional assertions were speculative and not enough to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of controverted facts and the necessity of jurisdictional discovery.

The court said that it could not allow the couple to manipulate the rules of discovery to seek the existence of contracts and transfers of title, without any jurisdictional contentions to support it. Thus, their motion for discovery was denied.

The case is No. 23-4031-DDC-GEB.

Judge: Birzer, G.

Attorneys: Stephanie B. Poyer (Butler & Associates, PA) for William Huth and Deborah Huth. Cory R. Buck (Case Linden Kurtz Buck, PC) for Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. a/k/a GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. and Midea Group Co., Ltd.

Companies: Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. a/k/a GD Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd.; Midea Group Co., Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory JurisdictionNews HouseholdProductsNews KansasNews