Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.

16 Citing briefs

  1. King Tuna, Inc. v. Anova Food, Inc.

    Reply to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue 16 .

    Filed October 2, 2007

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for broad discovery, however, they also vest substantial discretion in the dis- trict courts to resolve any discovery mat- ters that arise. See Mylan, 2 F.3d at 64. For example, “[w]hen a plaintiff offers only speculation or conclusory assertions about contacts with a forum state, a court is with- in its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery.”

  2. Crm Limited v. Supreme Risk Management Fze

    First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

    Filed April 19, 2017

    When, as is the case here, a court’s personal jurisdiction is properly challenged by motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the burden is on the petitioner “to prove grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). Here, Petitioner’s theories of personal jurisdiction based solely on the supposed U.S. contacts not of SRM, but of other subsidiaries of Supreme Group B.V. are attenuated and based on bare and unsubstantiated allegations.

  3. Brown v. Ferrone, et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed November 21, 2016

    LEGAL STANDARD A. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction “On a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the grounds of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Pol v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 2009 WL 4017164, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 18, 2009) (Conrad, J.) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1993); Combs v. Baker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989)); see Otto Container Mgmt., LLC v. Greenkraft, Inc., 2016 WL 831325, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2016) (Conrad, J.) (“[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of setting forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal jurisdiction.”).

  4. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated v. Firemoon Energy, Llc et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claimor for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

    Filed July 14, 2016

    Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 991 F.2d 1195, 1200 (4th Cir. 1993). Moreover, contracts of a subsidiary cannot impute jurisdiction to its parent entity. Mylan Labs., 2 F.3d at 61-62. The factors articulated by the courts above plainly are not present here as to Longs Peak.

  5. Daobin et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed August 8, 2013

    Absent an evidentiary hearing, when a district court decides a 12(b)(2) motion, a  “plaintiff need only prove a prima facie case  of  personal  jurisdiction.” Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). “In deciding whether the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, the district court must draw all reasonable inferences arising from the proof, and resolve all factual disputes, in the plaintiff's favor.”

  6. Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed June 28, 2013

    Upon a challenge of standing, the Court will construe the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 62 (4th Cir. 1993.A patent has “the attributes of personal property.”

  7. Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Rule 12

    Filed May 29, 2012

    The court “must draw all reasonable inferences arising from the proof, and resolve all factual disputes, in the plaintiff’s favor.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). 1.

  8. International Union, United Mine Workers of America et al v. Consol Energy, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed July 25, 2018

    The Court did, however, point to the relevant authority: “the issue of jurisdictional merger is comparable to the corporate law question of Case 1:16-cv-12506 Document 101 Filed 07/25/18 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 2321 26 Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 61–62 (4th Cir. 1993) (Maryland ‘agency’ test for deciding whether to pierce veil separating parent corporations from subsidiaries for jurisdictional purposes allows court to attribute actions of subsidiary to foreign parent only if parent exerts considerable control over activities of subsidiary; central to exertion of such control is whether significant decisions of subsidiary must be approved by parent); Shinn v. Greeness, 218 F.R.D. 478 (M.D.N.C. 2003)

  9. Netter v. Guilford County Sheriff's Office et al

    BRIEF re MOTION to Compel .

    Filed June 5, 2017

    In general, “district courts ‘have broad discretion in [their] resolution of discovery problems that arise in cases pending before [them].’” Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 404 (quoting Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 64 (4th Cir. 1993)). In Hairston v. Barnes, 1:15CV1100 (M.D.N.C. May 19, 2017), a similar case alleging race discrimination against Sheriff Barnes, Chief Judge Osteen found, When attempting to show that Defendant’s theoretical non-retaliatory reasons were actually pretext, a showing of facts supporting allegations of past race-based disparate treatment by Defendant may be relevant to show intent.

  10. Levy et al v. Charlotte School of Law, Llc et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed April 21, 2017

    Where personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akszo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 69-60 (4th Cir. 1993). There is no basis for general jurisdiction over nonresident Holding.