IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
STEVE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
MINNESOTA TRUCKING, et al., Defendants,
|
* * * * * * * * * |
CASE NO.: 24-C-05-007073 |
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs, Steve Johnson and Susan
Johnson, by and through their attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
and Miller & Zois, LLC, oppose the Motion to Dismiss filed
by Defendants Minnesota Trucking and Dennis Sing (collectively,
for purpose of this motion “Defendants”) and requests
that Defendants motion be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiffs
request the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to
determine more information about the specifics of Defendants’
contacts with Maryland in general and specifically with this transaction.
In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:
I. Background and Law
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges
that these Defendants among other Defendants, negligently caused
injury to Plaintiff Steve Johnson (“Plaintiff” for
the purpose of this motion) when steel trusses fell on Mr. Johnson
on August 12, 2003.
Defendants concede to regular contract
with forum state in the affidavits attached to their motion to
dismiss. Defendants admit to four or five deliveries a year in
Maryland. There are also allegations that Defendants drove to
Plaintiff’s employer in Maryland and received instructions
from Plaintiff’s employer regarding how the cargo should
be loaded and unloaded and other details that relate to acts or
omissions in Maryland that may have caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
To determine if a basis for personal
jurisdiction exists, the court should resolve factual discrepancies
in the complaint and affidavits in favor of the plaintiff. Crane
v. New York Zoological Soc, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir.
1990). Court are not hesitant to grant jurisdictional discovery
to flush out questions of personal jurisdiction. See Commissariat
a l’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei, 395 F.3d 1315 (2005)
(finding district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s
request for jurisdictional discovery. See also Chesapeake
Publishing Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285 (1995) (federal
district court granted venue discovery); Presbyterian Univ.
Hosp. v. Wilson, 99 Md. App. 305 (1994).
II. General Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs believe that Defendants
have engaged in regular systematic business in Maryland based
on the admissions offered in their affidavits. As set forth above,
Defendants admit to what Plaintiffs contend constitutes the regular
conduct of business in Maryland. Defendants admit Mr. Sing and
Minnesota Trucking that he had four or five deliveries a year
in Maryland. To the extent that this Court disagrees, Plaintiffs
request the opportunity to conduct discovery to allow Plaintiffs
to fully understand Defendants general contacts with Maryland
on a level playing field as opposed to merely the facts offered
in these affidavits.
III. Specific Jurisdiction
While Plaintiff’s accident
occurred in Virginia, his claims against Defendants involve acts
and omissions that occurred in Maryland. Specifically, the allegation
in this case is that Defendants received and failed to heed instructions
given in Maryland regarding the unloading of the steel trusses
that caused Plaintiff’s injury. This allegation is made
both by Plaintiffs and by independent witnesses at the scene.
See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Steve Johnson and Exhibit
B Employee Incident and Injury Shirley Contracting Job Springfield
Interchange August 12, 2003. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that
this Court conclude that these allegations amount to specific
jurisdiction over Defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request
jurisdictional discovery to uncover more detail about Defendants
contacts in Maryland on the date of this accident.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiffs request that Defendants
Minnesota Trucking and Dennis Sing’s motion to dismiss be
denied. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request sixty (60) days
to depose Defendants to determine the extent of their general
contacts with Maryland and their contacts that are specific to
the instant case.
Respectfully submitted,
MILLER & ZOIS, LLC
___________________________
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
Empire Towers, Suite 1001
7310 Ritchie Highway
Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061
(410)553-6000
(410)760-8922 (fax)
Back to Sample Motions

