Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd.

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that this Court was unable to engage in meaningful appellate review of this discretionary decision.

The trial court's dismissal order was entered without the court ruling on Plaintiff's motions to compel responses to discovery requests concerning Defendants' contacts with North Carolina. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that further jurisdictional discovery was unwarranted. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that because the trial court failed to provide reasons for the implied denial of Plaintiff's requests for further jurisdictional discovery this Court could not ascertain whether the court applied an analysis consistent with Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021).

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 69A22 Filed 16 June 2023 ERIC MILLER v. LG CHEM, LTD., LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., FOGGY BOTTOM VAPES, LLC, CHAD & JACLYNN DABBS d/b/a SWEET TEA’S VAPE LOUNGE, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 281 N.C. App. 531 (2022), affirming an order entered on 20 April 2020 by Judge Michael J. O’Foghludha in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 25 April 2023. Gupta Wessler PLLC, by Deepak Gupta, pro hac vice, and Robert D. Friedman, pro hac vice; and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC, by Sara Willingham, Stuart M. Paynter, Celeste H.G. Boyd, and David D. Larson Jr., for plaintiff-appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, by Christopher J. Derrenbacher and Wendy S. Dowse, pro hac vice, for defendants-appellees LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. Abrams & Abrams, P.A., by Noah Abrams; Miller Law Group, by W. Stacy Miller II; and Schwaba Law Firm, by Andrew J. Schwaba for North Carolina Advocates for Justice, amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Eric Miller appealed from a divided decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims against Defendants LG Chem, Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. MILLER V. LG CHEM, LTD. Opinion of the Court The trial court entered that dismissal order without ruling on plaintiff’s motions to compel. Those motions sought responses to multiple discovery requests concerning the LG defendants’ contacts with North Carolina. On this issue, the Court of Appeals majority held that plaintiff “did not allege facts to support assertion of jurisdiction over LG Chem or LG America” and, therefore, further “jurisdictional discovery was not warranted.” Miller v. LG Chem, Ltd., 281 N.C. App. 531, 540 (2022). The dissent asserted that the court should “remand the matter to the trial court to consider whether further jurisdictional discovery is warranted” in light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021). Miller, 281 N.C. App. at 555 (Inman, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court of the United States decided the Ford case after the trial court entered its order. The decision clarified the proper standard for the “relating to” prong of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis employed by the trial court in this case. Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1026–28. The decision to permit jurisdictional discovery is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Azure Dolphin, LLC v. Barton, No. 16 CVS 7622, 2017 NCBC 88, ¶ 29 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2017), aff’d, 371 N.C. 579 (2018). To engage in meaningful appellate review of this discretionary decision, we must be confident that the trial court applied the appropriate legal standard in the exercise of that discretion. See, e.g., State v. Campbell, 369 N.C. 599, 604 (2017). Because the trial court did not provide any reasons for the implied denial of plaintiff’s requests for further -2- MILLER V. LG CHEM, LTD. Opinion of the Court jurisdictional discovery, we cannot be certain that the court applied an analysis consistent with Ford. Moreover, it is possible that additional discovery would lead the trial court to make new or additional findings of fact that could bear on the court’s jurisdictional analysis and our appellate review. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the Court of Appeals with instructions to vacate the trial court’s order and remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the plaintiff’s discovery motions in light of Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) and this Court’s recent precedent in Schaeffer v. SingleCare Holdings, LLC, 384 N.C. 102 (2023); Toshiba Glob. Commerce Sols., Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC, 381 N.C. 692 (2022); and Mucha v. Wagner, 378 N.C. 167 (2021). REVERSED AND REMANDED. -3-

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.