-FBS Long v. Chevron Corporation, No. 4:2011cv00047 - Document 36 (E.D. Va. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 4 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction And Failure To State A Claim On Which Relief Can Be Granted; 11 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State A Claim; 23 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim GRANTING Defendants' motions to dismiss. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 9/2/2011. (rsim)

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP -2 2011 EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division i t :'   DOROTHY SARA LONG, Plaintiff, v. Civil CHEVRON CORPORATION, TEXACO, Action No. 4:llcv47 and INC., Defendants. OPINION AND This dismiss filed matter Dorothy by and they jurisdiction exist, upon motions, points over Defendants' the oral motions can briefs, argument, to dismiss separate motions Amended ("Chevron") and been pursuant Federal that be on ("Plaintiff") and for of Court that even has granted. the filed Rules this Amended Complaint relief at Court have Defendants, associated made of contend Plaintiff's which Long's motions 12 (b) (6) both the Corporation Both and before Sara Chevron ("Texaco"). 12 (b) (2) is ORDER if After are GRANTED. Rules Procedure, no personal state set did a claim considering Complaint, reasons to Inc. jurisdiction failed to Amended the has Complaint Texaco, Civil to and forth the the below, I. Like many lawsuits, misappropriation sole heir seeking money. allegedly According Long, this now to suit of owed brings Augustus to him Plaintiff's deceased, involves Plaintiff beneficiary money Texaco. Mr. and of Facts was C. by at various Executive Officer, Am. 1 9. Plaintiff also alleges Long "arranged Mr. post-retirement office and payments among These will payments, travel and other referred Post-Retirement were Complaint, Chevron. is Am. Although more by this now a Compl. the Complaint Long by wholly and and of Texaco. in fees, pension benefits, Id. Complaint, as the Post-Retirement at to controlled and "Long Benefits Texaco the the numerous assistance." according owned Chairman, tax Order, and father, properties, executives which, the received Amended and her consulting and the Opinion These Texaco, fees, accounting in Long"), commencing regularly of the Chevron Director, residential to established specificity Amended in a as ("Mr. times that, benefits referred to and legal, Benefits." allegedly administered care, post-retirement are and director's expenses, health benefits be for Long suit Amended Complaint, Chief 1960's, this Defendants, President, Compl. allegations and Amended subsidiary of f 10. Amended the Complaint benefits does does that attempt to not Mr. identify Long provide with received, any the circumstantial evidence been to of the entitled. it a types For filing of benefits example, that Commission which money "Employee Benefit However, given also of this to Mr. filing Long. includes Mr. a Long, retirement benefits" Ex. variety Amended these Complaint practice" exchange for Am. asserts that convert that the executives, Long." sum to the of Ex. any 6. created by a Mr. the Long was and contributed f 11 & specific continuing that attached Securities one-time to and have Ex. 6. benefits The Amended Complaint income of may has has Compl. according Long "routine to Am. Long Complaint Chevron mention Compl. Mr. Amended and secretary Complaint, regular post- receiving. Am. Compl. t 7. With former no purportedly which, that Plans." makes list a & Amended shows See Am. "indicates 11 which Chevron allegedly made Exchange to the to payment is Compl. discussions alleges to "make and H such 12. long-term to that such between a of as that Chevron lump was Chevron According "[i]n Chevron and for sum Texaco into the Mr. a the Texaco's payments in benefits to which often for Mr. with attempt one-time Amended Long. connection Texaco and contemplated and to mind, the Amended Complaint benefits happened in post-retirement payment retirement what was In other words, retirees. states it Benefits significant termination companies precisely Complaint Post-Retirement lump Complaint, The Amended the merger commenced in 1999 and resulted owned and by the in Chevron's controlled agents combining of acquisition subsidiary, one or both, companies, of Chevron in taken the enjoyed by "Chevron Plaintiff Mr. and the the sole Texaco, 21. and had actually Mr. Long. Long Buyout with Compl. covered by embarking on a evidence $790,000,000 in 2002, other among such Complaint 19-20. that Long of of one or both, to Plaintiff, Compl. that that refused owner, ff 20, in 2002, both that they financial by obligations chase" to the existence that to Texaco upon infers received a obtain of this bills at that sum this must return fund, that between and from Amended paid and Long had continued his Mr. corporation, been See the 2000 the have payment. the and of Chevron Since Texaco, he Benefits the Benefits separation lump on numerous paying retirees. position relied indicates Termination to she Post-Retirement exhibit payments the not Plaintiff to that goose high with Amended their the an involvement employees of was alleges Am. contends detriment Employee a Long." represented all her "wild attaches Mr. of the ^ 19. fund "have rightful alleges further formerly agents its of or U 22. to attained to buyout and directly, Compl. Complaint Fund" wholly Post-Retirement Am. this the Complaint falsely complied Am. further Fund Amended Texaco by Buyout the misrepresentation Complaint or beneficiary Plaintiff 1 As Amended and Further, Chevron The directly the Long heir that Long. misappropriated deliver alleges a on behalf Long Benefits and created the Long Buyout Fund."1 However, as and Texaco actions terminated Texaco Am. one of Compl. the ff funds from Moreover, the repeated of its the Amended false notes Long and Long's financial Plaintiff the Mr. Compl. that she Fund, a on the complaint in February 15, the part of but all 2011. 14, asserting relief can personal parties that be and 2 Since the subsequently Plaintiff granted MOOT. Court and Mathews to all 24. locate lawyers former for naught. to failed Plaintiff County, not this filed to Court a a claim that this Docket No. motion, Plaintiff Docket No. Amended 9. Complaint Chevron to on dismiss, upon which Court 4. filed The has After an no the Amended The Amended Complaint, named both Chevron's by motion state asserting complaint, Virginia, a named party. Chevron. the filed only alleged wrongdoing on Texaco was Chevron has deems for removed over briefed original the % and been allegations, complaint Thereafter, Plaintiff's Complaint, Court thus Complaint in this Court.2 unlike with former current have Chevron Compl. attempts 23. History factual This jurisdiction fully with attempts Procedural Circuit Chevron, March complied Long's U 2011, Am. repeated Mr. Compl. in had Long. suing these foregoing 2011. was as that it Mr. made Am. 27. the complaint that conversations II ¦ Based on to has such numerous ^ 26, contends representation Chevron executives, Am. attorneys. Complaint obligations Buyout having former Chevron supersedes previous and Texaco her motion to as previous dismiss Defendants. Chevron filed 2011. Docket No. 11. process until June 14, Texaco did Docket not No. file 23. a motion However, 2011. Docket motion to its On August 9, their Defendants 2011, motions, raise seeking the Federal Rules Civil the Amended Complaint, Injunction," disclose the parties Fund. "Equitable on the to Compl. Action have assets to the of and f the the for a Court a and Plaintiff accuses Fund, seeks Defendants damages in Am. the in amount against fraud 1, 2011. argument law an of Compl. 12(b)(6) of specifics of and Action Chevron Post- Long the Buyout asserts amount of the U 42. an Plaintiff constructive 36. to Long wherein 11 for responsible the of in in Plaintiff conversion an actual result, alleged order of Compl. Am. of with arguments and Trust," "common of oral the Court II, which Plaintiff has not pled. allegation to recipients Texaco the Long Buyout Fund. July "Equitable the Count impose a counts 12(b)(2) As Constructive Chevron five termination amount of and all have In As heard misappropriation 34. 29, served similar titled location, with Benefits Am. seeks it April to dismiss. of is not until Court Procedure. I on 22. dismiss to Rules Count amount, associated Retirement seeks and No. the dismissal pursuant an was substantially the Amended Complaint of dismiss Texaco on both Chevron and Texaco's motions Both to equal trust" to the In Count III, the fund Long Buyout - amount Count Defendants. an IV raises According to the Amended regarding resulted Compl. Complaint, their Defendants' compliance in damages KH 44-45 to that Lastly, their negligently and The their Plaintiff that thus HU 47-48. is do propriety amount of Long Am. constructive from Defendants were made to actual motions to in the innocently fraud. or Compl. these Although Complaint counts the Court relevant a court dispositive of a the preponderance 3 Plaintiff's argument exercise address that to of the counsel personal the merits since because Fed. the Amended and 12(b)(6), regarding personal need only made pursuant of the R. court Civ. P. discuss to proving jurisdiction over New devoted the Court statute over of to the Wellington substantial Defendants' lacks the Rule personal 12{b)(2). burden of jurisdiction of 12(b)(2) motions evidence." addressing However, Plaintiff's a party is permitted to request that the also Rules therefore, party. existence that arguments for action ultimately bears judge defense. review an jurisdiction over court and, Under that rule, dismiss plaintiff argued Defendants' standard 12 (b) (2).3 have dismissed under finds jurisdiction Standard of Review Defendants should be dismiss Am. addressed below. III. the to a claim of seeking damages not Mr. compensation. require misrepresentations representations obligations Count V asserts fraud against Defendants, event with false statute concludes the "[T]he district defendant Fin. Corp. effort of v. oral limitations that Defendants, at by it it cannot need limitations arguments. not Flagship Resort Dev. (citing Combs v. A court Corp., Bakker, has 886 many jurisdiction turns challenge the defer the ruling pending also papers, decide (quoting Combs, on the sufficient New 886 plaintiff question legal complaint.'" memoranda at jurisdictional challenge.'" Id. circumstances, allegations (quoting courts in the make basis to Combs, the prima F.2d most favorable and the most existence jurisdiction.'" only 416 the to A of court motion allegations at "'the burden showing of 294 a jurisdictional "Under relevant the to F.3d 676). all the or may 676. facie at favorable Id. at context, survive 886 of relevant relevant Corp., construe credibility, of a hearing, basis that xmust light draw to In existence evidence F.2d the Fin. 676). simply of and personal questions...resolve 886 "'on Wellington F.2d is Combs, 2005) 1989)). the evidentiary trial Cir. whether " [i]f factual at question." supporting may, (4th (4th Cir. deciding separate receipt the a a 294 676 when court of 290, F.2d 673, disputed basis jurisdictional may of on A on F.3d options exists. jurisdiction 416 such pleading plaintiff, assume inferences for the (quoting Combs, 886 F.2d at district court may look to 676) . "When making both plaintiff so, should inferences' and give its decision, defendant's Plaintiff supported by the a proffered the benefit record." 8 proof of PBM and, when any Prods. doing 'favorable v. Mead Johnson 93312, v. a Nutrition at Akzo, *4 Co., No. Va. Sept. (E.D. 2 F.3d 56, determination motion papers finally that and settle existence of evidence, 62 3:09-cv-269, 29, 2009) (4th Cir. 1993)). jurisdiction is issue; personal either at trial or hearing[,]'" F.3d n.5 at Supp. 294 2d 788, (quoting 793 Regardless n.2 whether or question that the to bring Sec, Inc. 2009) vonly v. MIZ district the constitutional courts.'" F.3d a (citing to 617, manner in which whether personal person is to (quoting (4th its Ltd., Black's the the phrase Law may 611 Cir. used F. prove the of the evidentiary Corp., and Grp., Goldman, court 416 over to 857 the a court's process." Noble 2d 513, (7th by 1997)). the 525 ed. Congress v. proven defendant. express personal Inc. F. ultimate has the such establish 337 determines plaintiff Supp. Dictionary authorized ESAB a adjudicative exercise ordain v. exists, jurisdiction into Eng'g, courts not 2004)). - power 622 Va. same degree Id. Int'l the jurisdiction' the New Wellington Fin. Grp. Inc. "'does finding pretrial jurisdiction has LEXIS on preponderance a Prod. (E.D. the a simply eventually a personal Court power "Federal not remains "'Personal Va. of by at as mentioned above. based such must jurisdiction Dist. If the court does make proper plaintiff U.S. (citing Mylan Labs., attached memoranda, the 2009 (E.D. 1999)). jurisdiction under lower Centricut, federal Inc., "Furthermore, its 126 before 'exercising personal court must suit, venue, the have a defendant jurisdiction jurisdiction the forum, summons on the person.'" at 622) . personal a or a court court is the subject the operative is over Amended such personal the be question Complaint Am. must H Fed. is Inc., Civil is R. whether courts of of between 126 a F.3d Procedure, subject in the of establishes Civ. the the service service under jurisdiction requirements of the Carefirst pursuant to to the P. the state 4(k){l). defendant state where is the theory since that she that alleges jurisdiction Virginia's long a nonresident defendant, (1) the of state's must Fourteenth Pregnancy the arm "[F]or a district court to assert over the defendants argument satisfied: authorized on oral 1. of v. for of of ostensibly, at "exists Compl. be and exercise Inc. the non-resident jurisdiction conditions must are defendants statute...." matter jurisdiction located." proceeding, Chevron and Texaco her waiver federal sits. Plaintiff in Rules general jurisdiction of court a a relationship defendant...who of Therefore, to Federal a district the of over subject sufficient filing jurisdiction the defendant, (quoting ESAB Grp., the jurisdiction district Id^ to summons a and authorization According " [s]erving where over constitutionally and over exercise long-arm comport Amendment." Ctrs., 10 Inc., 334 jurisdiction statute; with the due Carefirst F.3d two 390, and (2) process of 396 Md., (4th Cir. 2003) assertion not (citations during provide an can exercise under In both fact, argument, oral the "[b]ecause Virginia's clause, the 561 F.3d 273, Haven Advocate, 315 the Court jurisdiction in United States "A court's defendant 'minimum traditional Carefirst Md. , Washington, which courts "depending state also on of Eng'rs intended Corp. Cir. whether with proper Amendment. merges the the v. 2002)). Due to Geometric Young exercise the with v. (citing jurisdiction due the process forum, interests of fair U.S. 310, 316 whether whether the the in that of New As a personal Process Clause to xdoes (quoting (1945)). As contacts the to suit." not the with Id. the offend justice.'" Int' 1 exist, contacts has require substantial defendant's 11 that state nonresident defendant 397 at for the a and minimum basis over if such play F.3d provide is be Court Constitution. 334 assess inquiry (4th comports Inc., 326 this does permissible under 2009) 261 address matter its notions of only with defend Cir. 256, with contacts' to F.3d exercise comports defendant v. this (4th which statute apparent statute Fourteenth extent Consulting 277 need the statutory inquiry." long-arm Jurisdiction must and the counsel's upon long-arm to to alone, id. statute jurisdiction Ltd. , the basis, See long-arm constitutional of Virginia's jurisdiction. process result, Contrary independent extend personal due omitted). Shoe Co. standard by it the varies forum When the defendant's contacts contacts may establish defendant. courts In purposefully arise the of whether the the the basis must for arise unrelated In such general that conduct Analysts the personal personal the where any occurred." India, v. general, 551 "a Inst. v. 285, Consol. more would be not where of n.15 Co., but omitted). contacts may Inst. also defendant (citations of "If, persistent, defendant Mining (3) the is 292 and are the court regardless F.3d Benquet and claims omitted). over defendant's has conducting state; state Id. and systematic," CFA the state." reason, the {citations with exists, plaintiffs' jurisdiction the of jurisdiction Id^ then jurisdiction for (citing Perkins at defendant's with "continuous of directed the defendant privilege the contacts suit, scenario, state of the those over jurisdiction which the lawsuit, jurisdiction whether activities the contacts forum are (2) the such to of xreasonable.'" from a personal extent defendant's for whether itself exercise constitutionally however, the state; those basis specific (1) availed in out the determining "consider activities form with said to have be the sued (4th Cir. U.S. in relevant Chartered 342 the Fin. 2009) 437, 438 motions to (1952)). IV. Since dismiss, the both Defendants Court will Discussion have filed address many of 12 the separate contentions in those motions independently. The Court begins its analysis with a determination of whether Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of personal not jurisdiction altogether presentation clear at jurisdiction from oral she is Amended Complaint specific types personal the over for case a will Texaco, or her of Lastly, the personal either general of it has addressing Court discovery will and or general whether again is whether her discussion once it counsel's of analyze address jurisdictional Since type will with jurisdiction. requests what facie Court Chevron. briefs, Court starting the jurisdiction Plaintiff's Plaintiff's a prima - Next, to argument, states personal of respect alleging, jurisdiction jurisdiction.4 with both discuss leave to amend the Amended Complaint. 1. Personal Jurisdiction as a. As noted jurisdiction related has to been the defendant." 466 4 U.S. Although general the earlier, over said General a 408, 415 2011 a a State suit contacts Amended her seemed j urisdiction. 13 arising out forum, the the of over v. "To S.A. establish seemed counsel's focus to on the Hall, general focus argument more or State Colom., De to personal jurisdiction' Complaint arguments, hearing with (1984) . exercises not 'general Nacionales n.9 Plaintiff's 9, in exercising Helicopteros jurisdiction August "[w]hen defendant be Chevron Personal Jurisdiction defendant's to to on during specific jurisdiction State the over must demanding the defendant, have standard been than is AL5 Inc. , 293 707, 712 level of jurisdiction 623). will Id. With briefly framing of at these 715 the facts i. Plaintiff {4th to "Chevron a Corporation's of including support Compl. and 80 3. Such historical, websites and products for what are Plaintiff has confer Grp. , general Inc., a backdrop, facts specific 126 the alleged, F.3d Court and the and Argument portion over employees, and Chevron can Am. dubbed be and She agents Texaco to commercials to in in As Amended that Virginia one or more subsidiaries, contacts to Virginia." "are Virginia, nameplates, "overwhelmingly 14 and Plaintiff, everywhere 4. in sufficient seen f her alleges controlled according Compl. of activities overwhelmingly television sale." threshold for allegations. owned contacts, and Facts commercial wholly jurisdiction K as more Consultants, than ESAB significant directors, Texaco, higher a in specific "' [T] he to (quoting jurisdictional over its Serv. 2002). jurisdictional dedicates its establishing sufficient Jurisdictional by systematic,' Digital Cir. activities argued by both parties. Complaint undertaken for principles legal discuss those v. significantly jurisdiction.'" at Inc. contacts is and necessary Scan, minimum defendant's 'continuous j urisdiction." F.3d the specific sufficient Am. vast from signs examples and of contacts," Plaintiff attaches According to from to Plaintiff, Chevron's obtain Three a is Chevron which or a which and jet oil Exhibit lubricant marketers located Chevron also is a products at Amended Two are in actively aviation Exhibit in Virginia Global to locations of Virginia. NAPAONLINE, where seeking allegedly a map from on Chevron's is throughout available "screenshots" Virginia. general is Complaint. information from Chevron Four "screenshot" makes change fuel Virginia. Five and detailed that throughout Exhibit her "screenshot" shows Texaco to One show Texaco purportedly Chevron exhibits Exhibits website Aviation website sell several Chevron Finally, showing through that third- party retailers. In Chevron's dismiss, seeks and to memorandum attached rebut allegations. Complaint contains itself. Rather, only makes Chevron's Chevron Further, or Mem. one maintained Chevron Mot. notes that been a authorized 9 that sells to agent {citing no it the Amended against Chevron Amended "Chevron Dismiss. 15 the to thereto, that Chevron's registered it is motion jurisdictional allegations Chevron, indicates its exhibits assertion regarding Virginia, Supp. to of Plaintiff's jurisdictional accusations in and of principal according response incorporated Virginia, no support declarations every Chevron's in Complaint subsidiaries. has do never business in Endries been in Virginia." Decl. gasoline, H ships 5). no products, contracts terminals or in real order reconcile Plaintiff's are, no real has of no Amended such course, business in Id. those statements Virginia." attached declaration, no Chevron the explain the or employees, possesses Decl. no maintains and no 1JH 6-10) . exhibits states In attached that while it Commonwealth, "[t]here subsidiaries that Chevron Chevron no listings advertise offices, the owns local not taxes, with with more Id. to does (citing Endries or no distributors, property interactions services, maintains or Complaint, one or maintains suppliers, pays goods directories, Virginia, in Virginia. to itself in no facilities, business plants, property, accounts to or business warehouses, supply dispensing telephone solicit to then goes context on, through do an behind each exhibit attached to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. According to "screenshots" links webpages are products Id. or the Id. at marketed, does the H and 16. to % to the Moreover, the website those Chevron, by Plaintiff's obtained the by the linked Chevron declaration discussed are Chevron of by Chevron-branded products composition 16 are website, produce Rather, of owned/operated 13. not each 1-4) chevron.com NAPAONLINE according respect although Exhibits Decl. Chevron on With of Endries found Plaintiff. sold off in copyrighted subsidiaries. that declaration, (pictured following states this by the produced, subsidiaries. those Chevron subsidiaries, business the from declaration "time to independently managed time" from corporate minutes, Effectively, show contacts records has with that that be imputed are control Endries over officers, Decl. Plaintiff's its to no they separate boards, that by conducted sufficiently capitalized, and accounts. asserted have however, Chevron has they are Virginia can they Virginia, subsidiaries have Chevron contacts in Chevron, their day to day operations, and Chevron and its states for 11. exhibits subsidiaries, Chevron U do but not jurisdictional purposes. In Plaintiff's to dismiss, she memorandum makes a in opposition series jurisdictional arguments. jurisdictional argument was reason alone." denied 1. for that Second, 'minimum case she finds to lack at a personal later date that most Chevron's "because it do of but from that Complaint be if the conjunction that if the discovery 17 the case indicates case would that the would not In jurisdiction, move no to wanting. even Dismiss Virginia it even be Chevron's nothing part) the should Chevron Mot. acceptance would to filed, Opp'n "[t]he Amended claims if states Plaintiff urges jurisdiction Plaintiff of the responses timely Mem. the Therefore, dismiss personal assertion, back Id. that for she not protestations (electronically, practical for contends contacts' Delaware." First, of to Chevron's motion is Court with this dismissed likely Defendants come are subject to an properly be argues that Chevron actions or Corporation...." respect Despite 9, to 2011 in with."). out, Court general 3. The will personal in name, relevance address Court to will raised assertion look no to the than Motion State in Court argument further "Chevron's Failure address Plaintiff jurisdiction by from the whether or not Texaco last argument apparent. oral argument, not opposing of officers, readily does arguments and is now Chevron disagree with declarations. Tr. 45, side, the we parties Chevron Aug. is don't staked subject to to a Analysis the considering that entities this not Plaintiff jurisdiction in the present matter. first by is she ii. Prior but of could xChevron during that Defendants' the separate called however, With Third, perpetrated jurisdiction declarations disagree were contends 1-2. not company acknowledged made (tt[T]he the "a arguments, counsel statements at at are longer exists personal these Plaintiff's the Id. Texaco for Plaintiff Id. Plaintiff lawyers which no which Court. and affecting Corporation,' with claim, filed in this that directors, ERISA merits the the opposition should not it Court's Dismiss Chevron's non-substantive her because of previous for Lack Claim...shall 18 be Order, of As to Chevron's untimely, the Court where timely the personal it Jurisdiction deemed the counterarguments brief. entertain was arguments, need stated and for filed." Docket No. merit. 14. As proceeding Plaintiff's assertion the case it a in a indefensible, Noble despite even different even Sec. , if Inc. , cannot find personal exists otherwise"). Chevron and Texaco how if dismissal considerations determine timeliness since lacking See the to proceed with is Therefore, such recognizes 611 of F. Supp. judicial With on separate argument the entities, has any that Plaintiff's the counterpoints jurisdiction calculus, address Chevron's merits general personal " [I]t is of generally corporate subsidiary entity." Saudi {4th 5 If Cir. 2005) Plaintiff argument jurisdiction over is v. the cannot (citing arguing case Purdue those contacts Corp., Research whether unable to the Court significant Court must Court lacks the 427 contacts to its F.3d Found, of a parent 271, 276 v. Sanofi- jurisdictional contacts analysis in the subsequent which addresses whether the over Texaco, makes the irrelevant. 19 none allegations the this jurisdiction Texaco's should be imputed to Chevron, the section of this Opinion and Order, Court has personal jurisdiction imputation of that that Grumman that is no and simply it. impute Northrop of the have that where Consequently, effect on the personal the Court on case legally Court question bearing of personal jurisdiction as to Chevron.5 concludes is basis to the (noting "the that should possibility. 546 economy, regard in argument at without jurisdiction practical 2d is Court result an a the personal merely jurisdiction are that court, it that concludes would argument Synthelabo, also S.A., Dickson (5th Cir. stating Marine that subsidiary, forum PBM showing of of v. by the 2009 if of a Dist. Fourth that one LEXIS is erected by the to protect parent (citing Lakota Girl Man., Inc., "Thus, 519 for Scout F.2d 634 the the such at subsidiary's confer jurisdiction parent and its itself (2) subsidiary from in in the such that the Citicorp Acceptance F. Supp. 393, reasonable where the This imputation "the subsidiary is acts as an agent 20 "a v. that a support court can the plaintiff's fictitious shield Id. at Havey Fund-Raising personam jurisdiction are (citing Omega Homes, or alter (W.D. plaintiff ego of (1) between subsidiary's 400 show sufficient relationship Id. 656 cannot liability." Virginia can be imputed to the parent." Co., contacts"); the plaintiff must that is with 1975)). corporation, and alone is a Inc. exercise activities contacts (noting if subsidiary and and rule, Council, to *5 338 parent corporation's 93312 331, institutional as general (8th Cir. court over a defendant parent that the the See Saudi in corporation jurisdiction over a parent 2003)). F.3d corporation's the that 179 Circuit a parent-subsidiary relationship While Cir. presumed related evidence demonstrates *9 (7th Inc., corporations, basis U.S. n.17 long determining the 788 Panalpina, have related when jurisdiction). assert 773, Inc. u[c]ourts can be Prods. , F.3d (cited 1999) independence a 338 Va. the actions Inc. v. 1987)}. shows the to that parent." LTD Mgmt. Co., 2:O7CV53O, 11, 2008 2008). such directors, of and the 2:04cv258, Applying has failed personal *16-17. courts LLC v. U.S. Dist. (E.D LEXIS officers, the parent the forum Koch at ownership is, law above, jurisdiction Inc., (E.D. a the prima over Court facie Chevron concludes case that showing which extensive contacts does not jurisdiction, exhibits were to with conduct it Va. and Oct. exists. In Plaintiff included serve examples as Virginia. an "'must As evidentiary construe general reaching draw the most 21 this The Court in her Amended of Chevron's noted above, when the hearing with respect to all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, credibility, No. Plaintiff that the Court has considered several factors. the alone, within the Def., *51 over omitted). present considers factors their own day to day in 28690, Mar. necessary w[c]omplete & No. the company also present Heckler Va. look at exercised by business Inc., separate have However, the parent Complaint, Court at control transacts the to conclusion, first of *15 maintain books, degree (citations at separately manage Def. 2004 2004) separate deem Colt 112024, corporations that to Franchising, determination, Id. subsidiary forum." Hospitality LEXIS this and employees, subsidiary. a Dist. the have insufficient 22, U.S. whether formalities, the Holiday In making as affairs, LLC v. favorable inferences assume for the existence F.3d at Court See of jurisdiction.'" 294 is (quoting not U.S. Dist. Broad. LEXIS ("Although 12 (b) (2) motion have in his all district In dismiss, notes Chevron's it that subsidiaries not statements do allegations, the actor purportedly Plaintiff's doubt the that a for lack of inferences courts Va. not responds exhibits with not to the show. In counsel truth of websites fact, as conceded Chevron's and noted that filings. 2:05cv558, 2006) opposing a is proof parties' required to 2006 (citations jurisdiction look Rule entitled drawn solely to inferences."). of its motion exhibits. activities itself. Chevron by argument is allegations. Chevron's of Plaintiff's Chevron Corporation is the contacts above, during Plaintiff declarations. has Tr. to taken This veracity they merely clarify that behind 9, Plaintiff's the the the Plaintiff's challenge 416 However, No. support Chevron Corp., Plaintiff's plaintiff represent not the in at Jan. from are Fin. 676). Busch, true Chevron, inconsistent v. (E.D. memorandum the of Inc. in drawing these directly at looking *6 dismiss the plaintiff's proof F.2d is reasonable favor, only Wellington at it to to 886 Network, 1868, omitted) to Combs, constrained Christian New those oral no not sites argument reason 45, to Aug. 9, 2011. The Court arguments. In next considers carrying its Plaintiff's burden, 22 response Plaintiff has to an Chevron's obligation to dispute akin to Defendant's "counter admissible factual l:09-CV-1114, Mar. 1, evidence supporting when dismiss lack for failed to during oral Chevron. Chevron's of as and valid upon bases jurisdiction. which As Plaintiff's part this Chevron rebut of a the result, the exhibits Chevron, can do be itself to has filings or submitted by to Chevron's maintains merely Dismiss can and thus only are general 1. states no that not and These perhaps are not exercise personal Chevron's position significant contacts credits exemplify rather, 23 personal motion court impractical Court itself. produce are untimely and a finding of but exercise to Plaintiff response Plaintiff Court not Va. of evidence in Chevron Mot. which subsidiaries, Court would in Chevron Virginia, Opp'n the earlier, (E.D. defendant's either that jurisdiction Mem. Chevron's that No. obligation showing a States, *4-5 jurisdiction). jurisdictional arguments personal the with at or defendant's] United 20477, something testimony [the v. facie evidence, argument in with plaintiff's prima produce sworn Lufti LEXIS a mentioned presence issue personal any inefficient. on a argument, Here, significant Dist. or other motion." confronted produce declarations that its U.S. or takes (discussing jurisdiction no that for 2011 2011) allegations affidavits evidence predicate factual represent a personal proper contacts basis jurisdiction of upon over Since not the Court sufficient to has concluded that establish personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has Amended made this websites products are over by subsidiaries more, attributed to However, referenced website the even extent companies" if designed the of of that are vast Virginia, have personal the from and however, jurisdiction been above and signs actions simply the combined Such allegations, general general of the nameplates, subsidiaries and alleging Chevron, systematic and Decl. is to jurisdiction Endries in her jurisdictional Virginia to 4. Four in allegedly performed illustrates cannot be by that blindly for jurisdictional purposes. imputable solely in discussion Plaintiff continuous personal to browsers, the actions are % support the parent activities everywhere Compl. Chevron, above sufficiently seen to "combined of " [t]he commercials Am. To additional Corporation be insufficient performed that television Chevron. general can for sale." also without states include whether exercise Paragraph are general allegations could Chevron. does Chevron and and over Court of considers which Complaint historical, next jurisdictional Amended under Court exhibits showing other jurisdiction companies facie any personal It the prima upon Complaint allegations. a Plaintiff's H such to The exclusively to 24 does not the contacts contacts warrant here. 14, that a are finding maintenance provide of not of a information bestow upon the Court general Inc., jurisdiction 293 F.3d at over 715 the ("We website's are not owner. prepared recognize that a State may obtain general of-state persons electronic on those regularly into signals the Gardens Dist. LEXIS Carefirst Resort 97704, of Md., sufficiently "television 334 including have sufficient constitute and the general Nichols v. 1200 (4th 1993) . Lastly, have nameplates, without further Techs. 2d n.17 amount 638 of and information, Convergence 626, G. (USA), (E.D Va. products, LLC D. does 2010) relative not alone for that nationwide sale the 1195, Defendants Virginia, calculus. 711 sale sales as not general F.2d in Corp., the air that do that (noting 25 personal jurisdiction. allegation change not with Virginia 991 for is mean Co., Microloops to not contacts & that Defendants required products v. for activities Searle (citing numbers, that v. U.S. website personal the does ("A 36 2009 2009) basis contacts' to solely Plan No. 16, phone fact solicitation signs a systematic 'minimum Strata 4 00) and jurisdiction." Cir. at Virginia justify Internet based Oct. in continuous u[A]dvertising the time transmit l:09-cv-550, form Similarly, to of toll-free to commercials" Defendants the Va. F.3d this Scan, jurisdiction over out- No. (E.D. interactive jurisdiction."). Ltd, *10 Inc., information, via at ALS systematically Proprietors Mgmt., at and State transmissions."); Coral provides who See F. of a a See Supp. small whole, when the product insufficient since the has imputable to are Court not support Court Plaintiff Chevron to is finds shown issue general that and concludes that it litigation, that continuous does not is Consequently, with proffered contacts sufficiently the contacts the the in jurisdiction). the through Chevron, not at Virginia exhibits may be and that are imputable systematic, have not general to the personal jurisdiction over Chevron in this matter. b. The Court personal also whether jurisdiction over court on the sits inquiries 277, given the statute In a court defendant and process due and analysis, Court will significant during oral relevant that can is of see a cannot As exercise mentioned exercise two pronged the state in Court Consulting at both discussion Eng'rs prongs of only in the district these conduct Corp., the focusing the While need personal inquiry, which specific previously, specific considerations. the look it Chevron. statute merge, the over long-arm constitutional at a Personal Jurisdiction concludes jurisdiction determining both Specific two a 561 F.3d present case Virginia long-arm statute provides argument. part, Virginia's that: 26 long-arm A. A court may person, cause of 4. or engages conduct, this Va. Code through basis over to this Chevron. to Amended agent' the the action which Virginia 2011. who's at the Commonwealth if business, or solicits other persistent substantial or On of from rendered, in she pretty has Plaintiff's that of Plaintiff statute statute argues a jurisdiction Plaintiff and of states over the that actions in the taken the seems contacts where in it Virginia counsel says if counsel is "[Chevron] stopped 27 [paying] by an U 1. stated that take an citizens against statute or they Tr. the statute Compl. jurisdiction is proper]...." also said Plaintiff's long-arm Am. Plaintiff's specific in 'directly Virginia." argument, consequences statute, far away who did something with consequences and in provides personal argument, the both applicability to Chevron. consequences is argument, specific in making its occasions, long-arm exercise misconstruction [personal 16, by course revenue services several oral language during oral "statute this or at to jurisdiction Similarly, a outside Virginia's However, trigger with a to Commonwealth consumed and that Complaint, "provides over as this 8.01-328.1. Court misconstrue As id. § briefs necessary to agent, in derives or an Commonwealth.... counsel for or used Ann. Plaintiff's any jurisdiction by from the person's: does in or injury omission regularly goods personal directly tortious act he acts action arising Causing an exercise who of 15, 9, Aug. "for someone in Virginia," without reason, and it hurt a Virginian. under the These statements long-arm defendant's simply in puts bring does Virginia's not action fall had conduct Chevron to conduct, consumed at in 58. falls Ohio case, that the the derives services cause Code Ann. finding as Commonwealth to by action It whether an act in substantial 8.01-328.1. § of engages any the arises from statute Chevron's subsidiaries', Id. other at that show by 14. (1) an act persistent from goods Commonwealth, such unnecessary Chevron caused 28 to or Chevron regularly does revenue in omission its Commonwealth (2) as subparagraph reaches must is or long-arm Virginia. the that somebody analysis that or Plaintiff in as itself. statute in rendered Plaintiff's the suggested Commonwealth; or of Chevron's, injury and Court's statute long-arm contacts tortious or the Plaintiff given came reach the provision, of and Rather, within Virginia business, or or hurt omission outside of Virginia, in caused solicits in statute tree business or consequences long-arm a this According the A off argument, significant within 15. statute. long-arm at an arrow the in Id. shoots Id. oral of here." right company metaphorically closely track the words of (A) (4) them the a Chevron At a to the Virginia court it, Virginia." must gives oversimplify some deflected whether statute conduct because Plaintiff "got And that the tortious outside used and conduct. for of Court injury the course See or (3) Va. to make in the Commonwealth (as required by the briefs, declarations, Plaintiff has itself does rendered, on the the the has jurisdiction actions of subsidiaries, relationship between subsidiary's Inc., While derives revenue law to the F. it Supp. may be from the failed to show imputed to Chevron discussed clear. briefs Yet, or at "appropriate subsidiary above that true, the argument. from Plaintiff of its conduct personal has of is addressed omitted) argues, (1) to that confer that such that (emphasis that Chevron Plaintiff should purposes. straightforward those Plaintiff in arguing Virginia is sufficient issues has that the Omega subsidiaries standards" 29 is based parent." jurisdiction While (2) subsidiaries, the imputation not and the that Virginia. show sufficient (citations as conduct to previous Chevron subsidiary imputed 399 regarding accounting derived at for Plaintiff oral be its derives services with over 8.01-328.1 and or showing "should are Chevron the facie proper that or in relationship in Virginia can conduct, prima be from the argument, consumed Plaintiff parent clear showing that discussed a to is oral or a section actions 656 added). be made for pursuant has used such activities at facie As order subsidiary's Homes, goods have it in persistent only subsidiaries jurisdiction the a prima engages from made Commonwealth. Plaintiff Chevron's in revenue because points failed to make in section, factor) , and business, substantial Yet, first in The and her referenced income to of a subject a parent or corporation to personal law are provided. Court concludes statutory that basis Tr. jurisdiction, 49, Aug. 9, no 2011. section 8.01-328.1(A)(4) for exercising supporting specific facts Therefore, the does not provide a personal jurisdiction over Chevron in the present case.6 While oral the argument, position as personal of Court Plaintiff to how its making payments caused injury allegation the 829 specific personal not contacts the a cites 2007) into into court the with of in company being sued rise jurisdiction. was v. commerce, Virginia, the the That actual 30 the not be Co. , that some and of parent has the be stopped that conduct such an provisions due applied process a 4 98 a that of F. those In whose shown in 2d placed products company However, a company company that subsidiary's company into Supp. foreign company. been a three-part hailed that in Virginia. case. of can Boto premise imputation to can jurisdiction inquiry. in Virginia because the Virginia to the conduct itself While satisfy defendant Jones accessible in to the and one Circuit has a for stream sold website deal Fourth whether Va. eventually maintained did fails repeatedly (E.D. hailed products were statute, it within specific Chevron Virginia. fall determining 6 Plaintiff in conceivably noted above, for can be the Plaintiff Virginia, to of Chevron at alternative subject Plaintiff, because in an regardless to recipient inapplicable, presented Court, court (A) (4) should be According a to long-arm As 822, to itself this Virginia could component of test a implicitly in subsidiaries. into subparagraph Chevron jurisdiction hailed of finds also case business Boto, conduct the the gave present state court without violating protections. The court the defendant has purposefully of conducting plaintiffs' state; must activities "consider (3) whether in the (1) availed the claims arise out of and constitutional not 712 (citations made any exercise contact relevant Not single a mentions to of or that or Complaint alleges thus the the Long failure Hanson v. suffered money to showing privilege injury which that of in she Virginia the 357 of U.S. Virginia was Chevron conducting a contact 235, 253 because allegedly activities 31 activity with she no to her those forum in who cannot State." if Plaintiff longer receiving there availed related of Even entitled, hurt defendant the was Amended in Virginia, issue (1958) . purposefully the live nonresident the Post-Retirement best, at Complaint regarding Long At unilateral with requirement Denckla, in funds relationship F.3d Virginia. Amended the claim the towards chosen to w[t]he 293 any claims either receive Inc., directed has However, satisfy of jurisdiction purposefully Plaintiff's place the has Fund. to the Plaintiff Plaintiff that privilege Here, Buyout Virginia. some in took which whether personal omitted). substantive termination Benefits and her (2) ALS Scan, Chevron allegation conduct origination that the to those activities directed at and quotations showing of state; process extent itself would be constitutionally reasonable." at the due has itself her claims been of in no the the Commonwealth. Consequently, demonstrated personal any basis Personal a. i. Although personal on Jurisdictional Plaintiff Court adequately- could exercise against abundance the over and response to Texaco, In the Chevron, the the discussed Plaintiff's does it will alleges against it controlled asserting the Court caution, turning section, facts necessary briefly to recap carefully alleges by against Chevron to most in dismiss by Chevron. repeat the personal Court motion made will personal asserted to those Court specific the Texaco's oral somewhat murky. general to general found the Plaintiff arguments claims. of While the jurisdictional law facts solely against Texaco. Amended allegations Chevron. to identical find Plaintiff's jurisdictional and not above, Plaintiff In prior and be asserting previous facts to jurisdiction of of jurisdictional many arguments Court personal possibility and Argument Texaco, of an to Texaco appear of examined owned not subject jurisdiction. does does Facts the jurisdiction that the not Personal Jurisdiction out address the which Jurisdiction as General jurisdiction Therefore, raises upon has jurisdiction over Chevron. 2. argument Plaintiff She Complaint, specifically first subsidiary 32 asserts of she against that Chevron makes Texaco Texaco is fewer than she a wholly Corporation and, therefore, the "overwhelmingly contacts sufficient of Chevron contacts to Corporation support Chevron and Texaco in Virginia." Am. Compl. of that the these under contacts, Chevron websites, for Am. Corporation's website Lube Compl. the only locations Chevron markets H 4. Apart in regarding brand "Texaco Am. jet throughout the state of Virginia." In Texaco's it "adopts arguments Mem. and made Supp. memorandum herein by in Mot. Chevron" supporting its jurisdiction it sells goods or maintains no to do no ships owns local no and Compl. of its addition, argument & to Complaint Texaco 2, Xpress and that services K 5 & Ex. 3. motion dismiss, to the grounds dismiss. Soler not also subject Decl. dispensing and it Texaco, contracts and Texaco however, to advertises Chevron imputed aviation According or as "Chevron.com Ex. is terminals 33 the it products, listings, to that in Virginia, no be reference motion Virginia. business gasoline, services, in 4 its 1. personal by that Amended In Dismiss facts qualified support incorporates proffers not in 1 such and products numerous fuel Am. can that to Compl. branded signs the companies" Virginia alleging is loyalists Virginia," with Virginia Texaco As an example "combined from that jurisdiction over 1 3, nameplates, contacts Texaco in contacts statements makes directs have commercials, alleged specifically alleges Corporation television sale. Texaco, she are to f it 4, supply to is and no facilities, solicits no business, has no offices, supplier or distributors, bank accounts note, employees, owns in Virginia. however, that it in Virginia, attached to Plaintiff's declaration, much "screenshots" do real Soler was business no as Decl. as Amended like subsidiaries according managed, to are officers, that relate have Texaco, corporate Texaco business, As to no does and the Texaco did exhibits introduces states Texaco, that but a the rather to Texaco does not deny that it conducted business subsidiaries capitalized, minutes, do which to those sufficiently to plants, and maintains 6-10. Complaint, subsidiaries of Chevron or Texaco. has 111 2006. Chevron, not estate, authorized late warehouses, records in are and have and Virginia, but independently separate boards, accounts. Soler Decl. 1 11. ii. Drawing to on Chevron, make a the the prima Court facie jurisdiction over Plaintiff's and introduced introduced Plaintiff showing seeks As contacts Chevron, to that indicate documents by analysis concludes Texaco. filings systematic legal Analysis of its that this in the that with 34 Court case has of with has Chevron, itself and that has over in continuous Texaco has documents contacts jurisdiction to personal nothing reasserted the respect failed general Commonwealth. own, personal above Plaintiff Texaco the indicating impute outlined by which Texaco were actually than attributable Texaco produce itself. anything that are her stated counsel Aug. with 9, analysis with sufficiently completely As In fact respect is defendant general factor has fact being for continuous alone is personal Chemlawn Corp. , not F.2d obtaining a license appointing an agent contacts general F.2d with a to for forum jurisdiction); 745, 748 (4th by may have to sufficient over 89-90 (1st themselves v. 1971) 35 has licensed contact confer with upon See are the to do late as Virginia whether a a forum, the Court v. (holding that state, and a not the sufficient exercise Laboratories, (assessing the Sandstrom 1990) support Texaco considered determining process, Cooper of in in to its contacts business Cir. in jurisdiction. business of 45, as Texaco. conduct service to no Virginia, in not Tr. part been do the does discussed finds to Chevron, effect. the Court systematic Ratliff Cir. that in and Plaintiff on consideration 83, Texaco the licensed jurisdiction 904 that Court business, and contention general personal Chevron, done failed reasons the conclusion, while to rather Plaintiff of systematic finding of have certainly a that and and has that same Chevron, unlike However, the subsidiaries, Texaco's argument for to this may only declarations Texaco, business, 2006. a not Texaco independent oral continuous reaching that at such, that would warrant or contradicts Texaco's 2011. Chevron Moreover, subsidiaries disagree to Inc., sufficiency of 444 of contacts for personal jurisdiction think the application to agent for service fulfill special weight Krajina v. in L-3 92113, *13 at personal to the Servs., (N.D. prima facie 111. is in case." Taltwell, for general maintains business 2004 registered *19-20 U.S. to at a Dist. 2011 U.S. {noting an of no of is Dist. that LEXIS general defendant USA district by of Corp., (E.D. the No. Va. is purposes, at do business, in determining forum, the is agent, where at *70 such it officers 36 See 2007 In noted whether defendant licensed revenue also where maintains or the (looking, as the to do contacts with the of omitted) . factors its amount of District whether a Court 2007). courts in where 20, this is 28690 facts in substantial LEXIS the court exists (citations advanced 3:07cv543, Dec. has persistent business a has jurisdiction, analysis *19 business forum, at jurisdictional licensed of of Victims Genocide Plaintiff personal Zonet considered generates Id. v. jurisdiction place in the or forum. LLC, a whether individual example, personal appointment requirement 2011) " [w] e in a given state). 93465, factors stating created merely because general LLC LEXIS some forum, an Taltwell, Dist. that of law 10cv5197, 17, and the context"); Aug. not and state No. determine case "engage must U.S. to a present licensed to do business order business Inc., jurisdiction In do purposes an directors in Colt for the Def. general defendant office are is and found, where only it pays licensed Since not to and where it owns imputable contact taxes, to Texaco in Virginia do business Plaintiff cited alone case is alleged fails law type of b. Turning to concludes exercising such the that Amendment's Process As which the the privilege of the plaintiffs' the state; would be and has was or earlier. conduct, licensed that to and do conduct has business Plaintiff failed statute Clause. within noted is jurisdiction, do above, under as has not necessary has claims arise whether constitutionally out the not as basis for the Plaintiff court in the those (A)(4) of the or not long-arm under whether the Due specific considers "(1) availed itself state,- of Fourteenth whether muster purposefully reasonable." a of when assessing of also subparagraph pass a Court again, provisions exercise 37 Once Regardless the the show well appropriate, defendant to Texaco. conducting activities (3) 2 006, systematic proper contacts jurisdiction to finds Texaco that the Personal Jurisdiction is fall alleged Clause. being personal long-arm the in additional and jurisdiction over statute, is Here, jurisdiction. activities extent that continuous Plaintiff Due point any Court Specific Texaco's personal the jurisdiction Virginia Process allege specific that some indicating for general personal claims to sufficient, the at property). (2) the of whether activities directed at personal jurisdiction of ALS Scan, Inc., 293 F.3d at 712 have (citations purposefully 2006, at arose no point out Burger of King (citations assert has is does satisfied activities at alleged Virginia if to At most, the fraud Plaintiff has the that There arise is no otherwise suffered out that injury not no allegations of Texaco's insufficient that Defendants in Virginia contacts to jurisdiction of bring this Plaintiff's with the Texaco 38 As cause forum, within Court. relate that to in her the alleged any business conduct since action and that there arises allegations specific in way. lawsuit a result, of those occurred have on his results to any this based to who directed Virginia relate seeks litigation or (1985) requirement Plaintiff with in some undisclosed location. are of See defendant warning the against that do forum as action 472 a allegation associated alleges Virginia and of forum. purposefully forum perpetrated Plaintiff in of has may late 462, U.S. fair as cause out-of-state this Texaco the ("Where an there, defendant injuries was interests occurred suit over her with 471 omitted) Virginia that contacts Rudzewicz, residents or or v. Although toward allege Texaco's jurisdiction activities."). conversion contacts quotations consented omitted). Plaintiff of Corp. and quotations directed any specific not from and out are personal 3. At the conclusion requested the Court discovery in the grant before jurisdiction over the discretion of oral her that it, discovery the district Court it 50, not Aug. decision of a OJSC "Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory", {4th Cir. However, "[w]hen 2002). speculation or state, a conclusory assertions court jurisdictional 402 basis the district 707 283 F.2d discretion "[a]gainst engaged in McLaughlin the any of offered the Circuit exercise n.3; of see act [sic] beyond 39 stating bare F.3d at wants to no some reason to Base McLaughlin v. (finding no abuse discovery that enumerated his 334 discretion." 1983) only a forum discovering also n.3 denying simply sees] jurisdictional affidavits 'nothing of 216 v. in Inc., hopes (4th Cir. denying Md.t sound Ltd. with discretion of the offers contacts the 216 806-07 defendants' about to permit 208, plaintiff the According to F.3d on personal Trading, plaintiff Fourth at 2011. "the in court's F.3d 800, in [the 9, 283 its Where exercise Metal a Carefirst expedition jurisdiction, Trading, McPhail, of omitted). fishing of overturn Metal a within discovery." (citations conduct is based committed Base counsel jurisdictional whether or not matter court." for concluded, could Tr. is Plaintiff's opportunity the that "the argument, the Defendants. Fourth Circuit, jurisdictional of event information to Jurisdictional Discovery they in when had § allegations' not 6-103, that the defendants had had significant contacts with the state of Maryland"). In bases the upon present which jurisdiction. personal she Under her business discussed above, declarations to conceded Plaintiff that not Defendants does Tr. information that any shows the to pled themselves, meaningful their actually has Defendants' Therefore, of since information rather contact the contacts of with 2 011. existence are as Plaintiff disagree the their through subsidiaries. 9, of However, Plaintiff Aug. personal could exercise because shown by potential exercise Court not 45, two Virginia. have contacts suggested had could theory, Defendants subsidiaries, alleged first Defendants' See has Court connections she has over those that declarations. the Defendants that attributable Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction substantial shows case, than with that their Virginia, or their subsidiaries should be imputed to the Defendants because the subsidiaries operate as an alter ego, the Court sees no justification for allowing jurisdictional discovery on Plaintiff's first theory. Under personal Plaintiff's jurisdiction second in theory, Virginia Defendants because outside of Virginia that had consequences at no point directed does any Plaintiff contact allege toward that Virginia 40 are they took in Virginia. Defendants that subject to actions However, purposefully gave rise to Plaintiff's alleges that Virginia, of claims. took unilateral as noted above, some satisfy Court 3 57 U.S. at reason, are point be would discovery is Plaintiff's with of 253. such best, somewhere Plaintiff outside of Court anything oral found amend it Circuit when in the Commonwealth. nonresident a with Plaintiff concrete the has not than warranted. a cannot forum proffer conclude more defendant allegation to those who as given to that that State." material Defendants' discovery fishing on expedition, Therefore, the the Court this such denies request. During to a an 4. leave live contact or mistaken, not to Since as facts declarations party, at "[t]he unilateral activity of requirement jurisdictional only action decision relationship the any Fourth previously, and those actions happened to hurt a Virginian by dint However, Hanson, stated Defendants Plaintiff's claim As the argument, Plaintiff's legally amendment counsels v. BearingPoint, be Inc., Plaintiff's Amended that amendment would to Amend be to 50, amend prejudicial Matrix F.3d 172, 41 193 also in Aug. faith on the part of futile." 576 Tr. "leave would counsel Complaint inadequate. there has been bad or Leave Capital requested the 9, event 2011. should to be the the The denied opposing the moving party, Mgmt. (4th Cir. Fund, 2009). L.P. In the personal jurisdiction concluded that Plaintiff's as well her counsel's of making the prima as exercise personal concluded that that fishing allowing could on over *16 as would to U.S. Dist. could futile has LEXIS failed that to these Va. this amend the has 13, Plaintiff 2006) the the will not (denying to be add a U.S. granted 42 that allege Inc., Aug. to 3, make jurisdiction to amend his Rochon LEXIS Plaintiff's conclusions sufficient (D.S.C. Dist. defendant a amendment Bank, futile."); lack of personal Court's alleged 2006 an personal be than conclude sufficient Plaintiff would 2:05cv554, complaint while not allowing also indicating adequately *20 to jurisdictional such facts has Court more United at short Court facts two to v. court The anything because 89133, Court fall this reasonably allege Defendants Inc., Feb. to any these Hosch showing However, that be e.g., amendment would not cure Plaintiff be inability Gateway, (E.D. advanced Court for Defendants. would the argument, necessary viewing Defendants....Thus, Snyder's leave 2010 facie Complaint at the above, the Amended Complaint, oral See, ("Plaintiff prima point When at over not in Plaintiff's jurisdiction. a has this together, cure 4:O9CV149O, showing jurisdiction amendment not 2010) facie expedition. shortcomings allegations statements Plaintiff discovery discussion 8709, request because v. for such an jurisdiction). above indicate jurisdictional jurisdictional that facts, discovery and in order to search jurisdiction, before Court must scour to Court show whether be conceivably Plaintiff that allegations if complaint. new has information '70s." Tr. indicates depose Mr. Long's Texaco. Tr. Plaintiff ever used granted her 25, 9, Aug. indicate not her 2 011. a 9, file counsel "lifetime 2011. that these 43 well but order true, allegations concludes information a second the did amended discuss to discovery, sources the at could new from the counsel he former no of counsel, Plaintiff's However, her prospect agreement as in jurisdictional According as in were Court her Additionally, secretary this discuss jurisdictional reasons attention, the has to she information. bolster argument. granted former she oral that complaint If The at for jurisdictional leave does that Court's sources, to futile. alleged amended her briefs, oral Aug. if the that in possession of that, has proper. cure Plaintiff during 24, is relevant be were in Plaintiff may be to be to possibility points made possession, second alleged could Though information these not she the this previously omitted reviewing possession a jurisdiction by simply including that her in and relevant other would Plaintiff brought introduced could After briefs, in one amendment whether already information address an Plaintiff's not that Plaintiff must currently were which might additional determine evidence untold, to the determining argument, has for would CEO point provide of does any information personal bearing on jurisdiction discussed adequate in the claim to showing personal to a that she second proper, and discovery amended expedition to the Chevron's first the Court anything motion that facie failed be to added is jurisdictional than deny a fishing jurisdictional allowing leave to amend Plaintiff's request is denied.7 Conclusion Opinion to or an jurisdiction that more prima could show merely 12(b)(6). has that to determines a to stated Rule make order are has Defendants, confirm this to subject sources under possession in to V. in over her Consequently, Previously failed persuade to Court would be futile. challenge has amount designed speculation, Plaintiff complaint failed would whether a in are These jurisdiction facts Defendants forum. of Plaintiff has has this withstand since argue in context Therefore, of whether and dismiss Order, to be the MOOT Court because deemed Plaintiff 'The Court notes that Plaintiff originally filed a complaint that Chevron Court moved has response, the to no which shortcomings. this by Court arguments fact has failed argument, make bite would be it all the over any was once in her in 44 met with again, The motions Court found above. remedy bites at information that the In before arguing to two this jurisdictional unable likely futile. currently analysis first that Defendants. the additional more ground supposed Texaco, been any the Complaint jurisdiction. has submit cure reflected shortcomings to on Complaint and personal as Amended to Amended Chevron Plaintiff jurisdictional and no the attempted persuasive alia, jurisdiction filed This both that inter personal Plaintiff Court, dismiss dismiss, the to that these The these apple, at oral requested third filed an Amended Complaint Court that followed motions to dismissal and the 12 (b) (2) not have raised and, of the As in for a the the dismiss. 12 (b) (6) reasons stated the Defendants wanting, substantive aspects is therefore appropriate The Order free Clerk IS Court it of to the with an analysis the and Texaco, of Court Court need not finds or no does Texaco in this SO is DIRECTED counsel of to send a she dismiss motions as Complaint. copy sees to over to the Plaintiff fit in a more of this and ORDERED. Virginia oL Opinion record. UNITED September to issues jurisdiction Mark S. Norfolk, the Defendants' Amended on it conclusion whatever action Based motions personal reaches 12(b)(2) that address the GRANTS seeking Rules concludes of of Procedure. Chevron portions above, under Civil over Plaintiff's take The forum. to all IT the that motion. Complaint Rules jurisdiction Rule filing of Chevron Amended above, result, While by Federal analysis personal action. filed Plaintiff's 12(b)(6) the determination dismiss of after , 2011 45 STATES Davis DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.