The overarching legal issue in this dispute revolves around the requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, particularly in the context of trucking companies and their drivers. In legal terms, personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to make decisions affecting the defendant, and it hinges on whether the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state. In trucking lawsuits, determining whether those contacts are enough often comes down to analyzing the nature and frequency of business activities, such as deliveries, communications, and actions within the state.
A central question in these cases is whether the defendant’s contacts are substantial enough to warrant the court’s jurisdiction, either under the doctrine of general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists if the defendant’s activities in the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they can be sued there for any matter, while specific jurisdiction is more limited, requiring a direct connection between the defendant’s in-state actions and the legal dispute. For trucking companies, even occasional deliveries or interactions within a state can be examined to determine whether these activities justify jurisdiction, especially if they relate to the conduct that allegedly caused harm.
Courts often must balance these factors when determining if personal jurisdiction applies, and the decision to allow or deny a motion to dismiss typically depends on the level of the defendant’s connection to the state and the role those connections play in the underlying incident. In cases where there is ambiguity, courts may permit jurisdictional discovery, allowing plaintiffs to gather more information about the defendant’s in-state activities before a final determination is made.
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, hereby oppose the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, Minnesota Trucking and Dennis Sing (“Defendants” for the purpose of this motion). Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendants’ motion be denied. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs seek the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to obtain further information regarding the Defendants’ contacts with Maryland, particularly as they relate to the events surrounding this case. In support of their opposition, Plaintiffs state the following:
I. Background and Legal Basis
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendants, along with others, negligently caused injury to Plaintiff Steve Johnson when steel trusses fell on him on August 12, 2023. Defendants, in their affidavits supporting their Motion to Dismiss, concede that they engage in regular business in Maryland, including making four to five deliveries annually.
Furthermore, it is alleged that Defendants drove to Plaintiff’s employer in Maryland, received specific instructions related to the loading and unloading of cargo, and committed acts or omissions in Maryland that directly contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.
When assessing whether personal jurisdiction exists, courts should resolve factual discrepancies in favor of the plaintiff. See Crane v. New York Zoological Society, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Courts are generally inclined to grant jurisdictional discovery where questions of personal jurisdiction remain unresolved. See Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei, 395 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that denial of jurisdictional discovery was an abuse of discretion). Maryland courts have similarly granted venue discovery to clarify jurisdictional questions. See Chesapeake Publishing Corp. v. Williams, 339 Md. 285 (1995); Presbyterian Univ. Hosp. v. Wilson, 99 Md. App. 305 (1994).
II. General Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have engaged in systematic and continuous business activities within Maryland, sufficient to establish general jurisdiction.
Defendants themselves have admitted to making regular deliveries to Maryland (four or five annually), which Plaintiffs contend constitutes regular business conduct in the state. Should this Court disagree, Plaintiffs respectfully request the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery to fully explore the scope of Defendants’ general contacts with Maryland. T
he facts presented in Defendants’ affidavits alone should not preclude Plaintiffs from developing a comprehensive understanding of Defendants’ business activities in Maryland.
III. Specific Jurisdiction
Although the incident resulting in Plaintiff Steve Johnson’s injury occurred in Virginia, the claims against Defendants are closely tied to acts and omissions that occurred in Maryland. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants received and subsequently failed to follow unloading instructions given in Maryland, leading to the steel trusses falling and causing injury to Plaintiff. This allegation is corroborated by independent witnesses at the scene. (See Exhibit A: Affidavit of Steve Johnson and Exhibit B: Employee Incident and Injury Report, Shirley Contracting Job, Springfield Interchange, August 12, 2023).
These allegations establish sufficient grounds for specific jurisdiction over Defendants. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request jurisdictional discovery to obtain more information regarding Defendants’ contacts with Maryland as they relate to the incident.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request sixty (60) days to conduct depositions and additional discovery to determine the full extent of Defendants’ general and specific contacts with Maryland as they relate to this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC
Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 779-4600
(410) 760-8922 (fax)
Maryland Long Arm Statute for Personal Jurisdiction
The Maryland Long Arm Statute, codified in the Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, § 6-103, provides the framework for asserting personal jurisdiction over non-resident individuals or entities in Maryland.
The statute is designed to ensure that Maryland courts can exercise jurisdiction over defendants who have sufficient connections, or “minimum contacts,” with the state. It is modeled after and interpreted in light of constitutional due process standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scope of the Maryland Long Arm Statute
Maryland’s Long Arm Statute allows its courts to assert personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that if a defendant has certain minimum contacts with Maryland, the courts can assert jurisdiction even if the defendant does not reside or conduct significant business in the state. The statute enumerates specific actions or activities that may subject a defendant to the jurisdiction of Maryland courts, including:
- Transacting Business in Maryland: If a defendant engages in business transactions within the state, even if on a limited basis, this can provide grounds for personal jurisdiction. For example, if a trucking company regularly makes deliveries in Maryland, the state’s courts could claim jurisdiction if those activities lead to legal disputes.
- Contracting to Supply Goods or Services: Entering into a contract to deliver goods or perform services in Maryland establishes a tangible connection to the state. If the subject matter of the litigation arises out of that contract, specific jurisdiction may be warranted.
- Causing Tortious Injury in Maryland: A defendant can be subject to personal jurisdiction if their actions outside of Maryland cause harm within the state. For instance, if a trucking company’s negligent practices lead to an accident in Maryland, the state can exercise jurisdiction, provided the injury has a substantial connection to the defendant’s activities.
- Owning or Using Property in Maryland: Defendants who own, use, or possess real property in Maryland can also be subject to personal jurisdiction. This provision allows Maryland courts to exercise authority when the dispute arises from the ownership or use of land or other property within the state.
- Get More Sample Legal Motions