United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
DENTAL DYNAMICS, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff,
JOLLY DENTAL GROUP, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company d/b/a JOLLY FAMILY DENTISTRY, and SCOTT D. JOLLY, DDS, an individual, Defendants.
MILES-LaGRANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction, filed January 2, 2018. On January 23,
2018, plaintiff filed its response, and on January 30, 2018,
defendants filed their reply. Based upon the parties'
submissions, the Court makes its determination.
is a limited liability company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Oklahoma with its principal place of
business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Kellie Haller is the
sole member and manager of plaintiff. Defendant Jolly Dental
Group, LLC (“JDG”) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Arkansas with its principal place of business in North Little
Rock, Arkansas. Defendant Scott D. Jolly, DDS (“Dr.
Jolly”) is an individual and a resident of the State of
Arkansas and is an owner, manager, and/or member of JDG.
is engaged in the business of brokering sales of dental
units, 2D and 3D imaging devices and related software between
dentists across the United States. On or about May 20, 2017,
plaintiff, by and through Ms. Haller, brokered a contract
with JDG, by and through Dr. Jolly, for the sale of a 2014
Planmeca Promax MID Serial # NTP670746 (the “X-Ray
Unit”), which Dr. Jolly allegedly represented was in
perfect working condition. Based on this representation,
plaintiff secured the sale of the X-Ray Unit to Dr. Joiner, a
dentist located in Santa Cruz, California, and Dr. Joiner
thereafter paid for the X-Ray Unit in full. Dr. Joiner paid
plaintiff, and plaintiff paid JDG.
to the terms of the Bill of Sale, JDG agreed to sell the
X-Ray Unit and all related components, including the computer
hardware, software, manuals, and X-Ray Unit accessories. In
addition, JDG agreed to secure Patterson Dental, a repair and
support company for dental technology, to properly
disassemble and crate the X-Ray Unit. Plaintiff prepared a
Bill of Sale for the X-Ray Unit and emailed Dr. Jolly the
Bill of Sale, and Dr. Jolly signed the Bill of Sale and
emailed it back to plaintiff's office. In August 2017,
Ms. Haller received a call from Dr. Joiner, who discovered
the X-Ray Unit was missing hardware and software and was not
in perfect working condition.
November 10, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action,
alleging a breach of contract claim against JDG and an
actual/constructive fraud claim against Dr. Jolly. Defendants
now move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2), to dismiss this action without prejudice
due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.
See Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts,
Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2008). However,
when a motion to dismiss is decided at the preliminary stage
based upon the complaint and affidavits, a plaintiff need
only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.
See Id. at 1070. In determining whether plaintiff
has made a prima facie showing, the Court resolves all
factual disputes in favor of plaintiff. See Id.
Additionally, a plaintiff must establish a court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to each of the claims
alleged. See Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362
F.3d 17, 24 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A plaintiff must establish
the court's jurisdiction with respect to each
claim asserted.”) (emphasis in original); 4A Charles
Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Adam N. Steinman, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1069.7 (4th ed. 2015)
(“[I]t is important to remember that a plaintiff also
must secure personal jurisdiction over a defendant with
respect to each claim she asserts.”).
To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show both that
jurisdiction is proper under the laws of the forum state and
that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend due
process. Because Oklahoma's long-arm statute permits the
exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the
United States Constitution, the personal jurisdiction inquiry
under Oklahoma law collapses into the single due process
Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions,
Inc., 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal
The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant so long as there
exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum
State. The “minimum contacts” standard may be met
in two ways. First, a court may, consistent with due process,
assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if
the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at
residents of the forum, and the litigation results from
alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those
activities. When a plaintiff's cause of action does not
arise directly from a defendant's forum-related
activities, the court may nonetheless maintain general
personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the
defendant's business contacts with the forum state.
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
A specific jurisdiction analysis involves a two-step inquiry.
First [a court] must consider whether the defendant's
conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Second if the defendant's actions create sufficient
minimum contacts, [a court] must then consider whether the
exercise of personal ...