Staggs v. Smith & Wesson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DAYNA STAGGS,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 21-2535 (JEB)
SMITH & WESSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Dayna Staggs, a security guard employed by American
Security Programs, suffered severe leg injuries when his MP9 pistol accidentally discharged
during a routine shift. Staggs has brought this pro se suit for the injuries he sustained against the
gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson; his employer at the time, ASP; and ASP’s insurance carrier,
Liberty Mutual Insurance. Defendants now separately move to dismiss the Complaint on
independent grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, preemption, service failures, and
pleading deficiencies. The Court agrees that ASP and Liberty Mutual prevail, but it will permit
jurisdictional discovery as to Smith & Wesson.
I. Background
Assuming the facts in the Complaint to be true, as it must at this stage, the Court begins
with Staggs, who was a security guard working for ASP, a company that is insured by Liberty
Mutual. See ECF Nos. 1 (Complaint), ¶ 5; 19 (Pl. Liberty Mutual Opp.) at 14. Plaintiff was
stationed at the Government Accountability Office, located at 411 G Street, N.W., here in
Washington. See Compl., ¶¶ 13, 18. On October 1, 2019, he arrived at work in the uniform of
1
another federal contractor, carrying a pistol issued by that firm. Id., ¶¶ 17, 18. His superior
instructed him to change into the ASP uniform and duty gear instead, which he did around
midnight in the GAO armory. Id., ¶ 18. ASP provided Staggs with a plastic holster and a Smith
& Wesson MP9 pistol. Id., ¶¶ 5, 18, 19. When Plaintiff holstered the gun, it accidentally
discharged and shot him in the leg, leading to long-term, debilitating physical injuries as well as
severe emotional and mental distress. Id., ¶¶ 5, 6, 19, 32, 33.
Staggs filed his Complaint on September 29, 2021, against four Defendants: Smith &
Wesson, ASP, Liberty Mutual, and an individual, Clem C. Trischler, who was voluntarily
dismissed on October 18, 2021. See Compl. at 1; ECF No. 3 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal).
The Complaint alleges seven counts: strict product liability (Count I), negligence (Count II),
breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count III), breach of express warranty (Count
IV), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count V), gross negligence (Count VI), and
resulting legal damages (Count VII). See Compl., ¶¶ 55–96. Smith & Wesson is named as a
Defendant in all seven counts. Id. ASP is named in Counts II and VII, and Liberty Mutual in
Counts VI and VII. Id. All three Defendants separately move to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit,
asserting a number of infirmities. See ECF Nos. 6 (Smith & Wesson MTD); 10 (ASP MTD); 14
(Liberty Mutual MTD). The Court addresses all counts below save for VII, which is in actuality
a prayer for relief and not a cause of action.
II. Legal Standard
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court must “treat the complaint’s factual allegations
as true and must grant plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts
alleged.” Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A
2
court need not accept as true, however, “a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” nor
an inference unsupported by the facts set forth in the complaint. Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178,
193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must dismiss a claim for relief
when the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Although
“detailed factual allegations” are not necessary to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, [if] accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted). Though a plaintiff may survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion even if “recovery is very remote and unlikely,” the facts alleged in the complaint “must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555–56
(quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).
A defendant may also move to dismiss a suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) if the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. The plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing personal jurisdiction, Erwin-Simpson v. AirAsia Berhad, 985 F.3d 883, 888 (D.C.
Cir. 2021), and its requirements “must be met as to each defendant.” Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S.
320, 332 (1980). In deciding whether the plaintiff has shown a factual basis for personal
jurisdiction, courts resolve factual discrepancies in his favor. See Crane v. N.Y. Zoological
Soc’y, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990). When personal jurisdiction is challenged, “the
district judge has considerable procedural leeway in choosing a methodology for deciding the
motion.” 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1351 (3d ed.
2021). The court may rest on the allegations in the pleadings, collect affidavits and other
evidence, or even hold a hearing. Id.
3
Complaints filed by pro se parties are to be liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In recognizing that Plaintiff is pro se, the Court will consider both
facts that he has put forth in his Complaint and those in his Oppositions. See Brown v. Whole
Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
III. Analysis
Each Defendant moves separately to dismiss, and for different reasons. The Court thus
addresses each Motion in turn.
A. American Security Programs
ASP contends that the claims against it are preempted by D.C.’s workers’-compensation
statute. The Workers’ Compensation Act, D.C. Code § 32-1503(a)(1), applies, in relevant part,
to “injury . . . of an employee that occurs in the District of Columbia if the employee performed
work for the employer, at the time of the injury . . . while in the District of Columbia[.]” It also
preempts tort claims that fall within the Act’s orbit. See id., § 32-1504(a) (establishing that
“[t]he liability of an employer [under the WCA] shall be exclusive and in place of all liability of
such employer to the employee”). Other courts in this District have held that “the law in this
jurisdiction is clear that the WCA is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, with the
result that common law tort claims arising from such injuries . . . are barred in civil actions.”
Lockhart v. Coastal Int’l Sec., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 105, 117 (D.D.C. 2012); see also, e.g.,
Vanzant v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 557 F. Supp. 2d 113, 118 (D.D.C. 2008)
(granting summary judgment for defendants because WCA was exclusive remedy for plaintiff’s
injury); Tatum v. Hyatt Corp., 918 F. Supp. 5, 8 (D.D.C. 1994) (same); Doe v. United States, 797
F. Supp. 2d 78, 82–84 (D.D.C. 2011) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on same grounds).
4
This conclusion is undergirded by the policy and efficiency goals of workers’-
compensation law in general. In the words of Chief Judge Beryl Howell, “The exclusivity of
remedy to employees is a fundamental part of the bargain reflected in workers’ compensation
laws, which necessarily entail a quid pro quo from both employers and employees.” Lockhart,
905 F. Supp. 2d at 116. So long as “[t]he WCA’s application does not present a substantial
question warranting a stay to enable an administrative agency to determine coverage in the first
instance,” judgment for defendants is appropriate in cases of WCA-barred tort claims. See
Vanzant, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 118. In sum, if Staggs’s claim is covered by the WCA, he cannot
proceed against ASP.
Such is clearly the case here. The WCA covers “accidental injury or death arising out of
and in the course of employment,” D.C. Code § 32-1501(12), as well as “claims for emotional
distress or mental anguish where the underlying cause or tort is covered by the WCA.” Vanzant,
557 F. Supp. 2d at 117. Under § 32-1501(12), “arising out of” and “in the course of” are treated
as two separate prongs that jointly establish a workers’-compensation claim, but “frequently
proof of one will incidentally tend to establish the other.” Kolson v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs.,
699 A.2d 357, 360 (D.C. 1997) (citation omitted).
The “arising out of” requirement “refer[s] to the origin or cause of the injury.” Id.(quoting Southern Motor Lines Co. v. Alvis, 104 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Va. 1958)). There are three
categories of risk here: (1) “risks distinctly associated with the employment”; (2) “risks personal
to the claimant”; and (3) “‘neutral’ risks — i.e., risks having no particular employment or
personal character.” Bentt v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 979 A.2d 1226, 1232 (D.C. 2009)
(quoting Georgetown Univ. v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 920 n.10 (D.C. 2009)).
The first category (employment-associated risks) is universally compensable under the WCA.
5
Id. The accidental discharge of Staggs’s duty-issued gun, while on premises and during work
hours, plainly falls within such category, as it is a risk distinctly associated with his employment
as an ASP security guard, making it automatically compensable under the WCA. See Compl.,
¶¶ 5, 18, 19. Even if the discharge were to be characterized as a neutral risk, the injury would
not have happened but for the fact that obligations of Staggs’s employment — namely,
holstering the MP9 pistol provided to him for his patrol while changing gear at the request of his
supervisor — placed him in the position where the gun discharged. Id. The “arising out of”
prong is thus satisfied.
Second, the “in the course of” requirement focuses on “the time, place, and circumstances
under which the injury occurred.” Niles v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 217 A.3d 1098, 1103
(D.C. 2019). “An injury occurs in the course of employment when it takes place within the
period of employment, at a place where the employee may reasonably be expected to be, and
while the employee is reasonably fulfilling duties of [her] employment or doing something
reasonably incidental thereto.” Id. (cleaned up). Staggs was actively employed by ASP and at
work when this incident occurred. See Compl., ¶¶ 5, 16, 17. More specifically, he was in the
GAO armory, part of his work premises, changing into his new ASP uniform at the behest of his
supervisor, demonstrating that he was somewhere he could have reasonably been expected to be
and that he was fulfilling duties of his employment. See id., ¶¶ 18, 19. The second prong is thus
also covered.
As Staggs’s injury is an “accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of
employment” under the WCA, his negligence claim against ASP falls within the scope of the
WCA and is preempted. See, e.g., Doe, 797 F. Supp. 2d at 81–84 (granting defendant’s motion
to dismiss on preemption grounds where plaintiff employee was likely exposed to mad-cow
6
disease in negligently run experiment); Lockhart, 905 F. Supp. 2d at 108, 119–20 (granting
defendant’s motion to dismiss on, inter alia, preemption grounds where supervisor repeatedly
slapped pregnant plaintiff employee in effort to revive her after she had passed out).
B. Liberty Mutual Insurance
The next Defendant, Liberty Mutual, argues that dismissal is warranted because it has not
been properly served and because the sole count alleged against it is facially insufficient.
1. Service of Process
“[U]nless the procedural requirements for effective service of process are satisfied, a
court lacks authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant,” Candido v. District of
Columbia, 242 F.R.D. 151, 160 (D.D.C. 2007); as a result, “[f]ailure to effect service is grounds
for dismissal.” Johnson-Richardson v. University of Phoenix, 334 F.R.D. 349, 352 (D.D.C.
2020). Defendant Liberty Mutual is likely correct in its argument that Plaintiff has failed to
effect proper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), as Staggs personally mailed
the summons on September 29, 2021. See ECF No. 2 (Pl. Proof of Service) at 9; see also Liberty
Mutual MTD at 3–5; Johnson-Richardson, 334 F.R.D. at 352 (“Rule 4(c)(2)’s restrictions — that
is, that the ‘person’ effecting service be at least 18 years old and not a party to the case — extend
to service made under Rule 4(e)(1), even if the relevant state law allows parties to effect service
by personally sending the summons and complaint by certified mail.”). The Court, however,
need not decide this procedural question because it agrees with Liberty Mutual that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff’s sole substantive count against Liberty Mutual is for gross negligence (Count
VI). See Compl., ¶¶ 90–92. As opposed to simple negligence, gross negligence must be “such
7
negligence as would ‘shock fair-minded men,’ or ‘negligence of such magnitude as to be gross in
character.’” Shea v. Fridley, 123 A.2d 358, 363 (D.C. 1956). In seeking dismissal, Liberty
Mutual contends that Count VI is duplicative of Count II, which asserts negligence against Smith
& Wesson and ASP, and that gross negligence is not a stand-alone claim. See Liberty Mutual
MTD at 7–8. Although this Court “defers to the general rule in the District of Columbia against
recognizing degrees of negligence and [would] dismiss as duplicative plaintiff’s claim for gross
negligence . . . as a separate basis of liability,” Hernandez v. District of Columbia, 845 F. Supp.
2d 112, 116 (D.D.C. 2012); see also Search v. Uber, 128 F. Supp. 3d 222, 237–38 (D.D.C.
2015), Defendant misconstrues those cases, as they involved claims of negligence and gross
negligence against the same defendant. As Liberty Mutual is not a defendant to the Count II
negligence claim, its duplication argument founders.
The Court, however, does agree with Defendant that gross negligence is not a stand-alone
cause of action in the District of Columbia. See Bradley v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 249 F. Supp. 3d 149, 169 (D.D.C. 2017); Search, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 237; see also
Liberty Mutual MTD at 7. “[U]nder [D.C.] law, courts have traditionally analyzed whether a
defendant acted with gross negligence only in limited circumstances,” which can generally be
classified into two categories. See Hernandez, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 116. The first covers
situations “where gross negligence is a specific element of a claim or defense.” Id.; District of
Columbia v. Walker, 689 A.2d 40, 44–45 (D.C. 1997). The second involves instances in which
equitable reasons such as public policy demand relief. See, e.g., Hernandez, 845 F. Supp. 2d at
116; Carleton v. Winter, 901 A.2d 174, 181–82 (D.C. 2006) (holding that plaintiff could raise
gross-negligence claim as matter of “public policy to discourage aggravated wrongs,” even
though exculpatory clause in contract limited defendant’s negligence liability). Neither of these
8
circumstances is present here. All of this is largely beside the point because even characterizing
Count VI generously as a simple-negligence claim, there are no facts in any pleading that could
substantiate it. Liberty Mutual owed no duty to Staggs, nor did it play any role in his injury.
Finally, Plaintiff’s contention that there is “legal contractual liability” against Liberty
Mutual for “coverage liability rights” is jumbled to say the least. See Pl. Liberty Mutual Opp. at
12. “It is a fundamental principle of contract law that, in order to sue for damages on a contract
claim, a plaintiff must have either direct privity or third-party beneficiary status.” Lexington
Insurance Co. v. Paddock Swimming Pool Co., 532 F. Supp. 3d 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2021). Staggs
does not allege that he entered into any contract with Liberty Mutual. In addition, a plaintiff
seeking to enforce a contract as a third-party beneficiary under District of Columbia law must
identify a contract that “directly and unequivocally intend[s] to benefit [that party], in order for
[that party] to be considered an intended beneficiary.” Sidibe v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 468 F.
Supp. 2d 97, 100–01 (D.D.C. 2006). “To be intended, a beneficiary need not be named in the
contract, as long as he or she is ascertainable from the contract and the circumstances of the
contract.” Hossain v. JMU Props., 147 A.3d 816, 820 (D.C. 2016). Staggs here cites no contract
or insurance policy, let alone alleges facts that he is an “intended” third-party beneficiary. Id.Conclusory allegations about Liberty Mutual’s contractual liability are not sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss.
C. Smith & Wesson
Last up is Smith & Wesson, which maintains that the Court has no personal jurisdiction
over it. There are two ways for a D.C. court to obtain personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant: general and specific jurisdiction. Both methods must be authorized by statute and be
consistent with the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. See Erwin-Simpson, 985 F.3d at 888–89;
9
Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“In a diversity case,
the court’s personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants depends upon state law[,] . . . the
application of which is subject to the constraints of constitutional due process.”).
1. General Jurisdiction
As to the first, “a D.C. court can exercise [general] jurisdiction ‘over a person domiciled
in, organized under the laws of, or maintaining his[, her,] or its principal place of business in, the
District of Columbia.’” Erwin-Simpson, 985 F.3d at 889 (quoting D.C. Code § 13-422)
(alterations in original); see also id. (noting that §13-334(a) of D.C. Code, though written as a
service-of-process statute, has also been “interpreted to confer personal jurisdiction”). If a court
has general jurisdiction, it may adjudicate claims unrelated to the defendant’s connection with
the forum state. See Livnat v. Palestinian Authority, 851 F.3d 45, 56 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 383 n.6 (2014)).
Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant “does business systematically and continuously”
with the District, see Compl., ¶ 15, however, is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. First
and foremost, neither statute authorizing such jurisdiction is satisfied in this case. Staggs does
not identify Smith & Wesson as being “domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or maintaining
[its] principal place of business[] in the District.” D.C. Code § 13-422. In fact, he affirmatively
identifies the company as being a citizen of and operating its principal place of business in
various other states. See Compl., ¶¶ 12, 15. Section 13-334(a), moreover, is triggered only
when the defendant is served in the District. See Erwin-Simpson, 985 F.3d at 889. That did not
occur here. See ECF No. 2 (S&W Proof of Service) at 2.
General jurisdiction also fails in this case as a matter of due process. To satisfy the
constitutional requirement, a court may only exercise general jurisdiction over a non-resident
10
defendant whose contacts with the forum are “so substantial and of such a nature to render [the
defendant] at home in that State.” Erwin-Simpson, 985 F.3d at 890 (quoting Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 n.19 (2014)). The “paradigm” cases in which exercising general
jurisdiction over a corporate defendant is appropriate are instances in which the forum is the
corporation’s principal place of business or place of incorporation. Id. Neither circumstance
applies here.
Although the Supreme Court has recognized that due process may also permit exercising
general jurisdiction over a defendant who is “at home” in the forum state despite being
incorporated and operating its principal place of business elsewhere, this is the “exceptional
case.” Id. (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.19). To be “essentially at home,” a defendant
must be “comparable to a domestic enterprise in that State.” Id. (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at
133 n.11). Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendant satisfies this high bar. Exercising
general jurisdiction over the company would thus be inconsistent with affording it due process.
2. Specific Jurisdiction
Even in cases where general jurisdiction is not appropriate, a court may exercise specific
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant to adjudicate only those claims that arise out of its
contact with the forum state. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.
915, 919 (2011) (noting that specific jurisdiction covers only those “issues deriving from, or
connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). In these instances, the court “first examine[s] whether jurisdiction is
applicable under the . . . [state’s] long-arm statute and then determine[s] whether a finding of
11
jurisdiction satisfies the constitutional requirements of due process.” GTE New Media Servs.
Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
D.C.’s long-arm statute enumerates the kinds of contacts with the District that are
sufficient to bring a non-resident defendant into a D.C. court, two of which are at issue here:
“transacting any business in the District of Columbia” and “causing tortious injury in the District
of Columbia by an act or omission outside the District of Columbia.” D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(1),
(4).
Under both prongs, exercising personal jurisdiction is only appropriate where doing so
also comports with due process, which requires that a defendant have minimum contacts with the
forum before being subject to its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hardy v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 953 F.
Supp. 2d 150, 156–57 (D.D.C. 2013); Schwartz v. CDI Japan, Ltd., 938 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C.
1996). In fact, for cases that fall within the “transacting business” prong, the issue is one of due
process alone. See Crane v. Carr, 814 F.2d 758, 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that the
“transacting business” clause is “coextensive . . . with the Constitution’s due process limit”).
The “tortious injury” prong also requires a “persistent course of conduct,” which “serve[s] to
filter out cases in which the inforum impact is an isolated event and the defendant otherwise has
no, or scant, affiliations with the forum.” Id. at 763.
A plaintiff, however, may not satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process
merely by pointing to sporadic contact between the defendant and the forum. Although physical
presence in the forum is not necessary, the defendant must have somehow “purposeful[ly]
avail[ed]” itself of “the benefits and protections of the forum’s laws.” Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475–76 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This
requirement may be satisfied through the defendant’s “participation in the ‘stream of
12
commerce,’” including by moving goods “through distributors to consumers” in the forum.
Williams v. Romarm, SA, 756 F.3d 777, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd.
v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 881 (2011)). “[A] ‘single isolated sale,’” however, “has never been
sufficient to establish minimum contacts between the manufacturer and the forum.” Id. at 785
(quoting Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 888 (Breyer, J., concurring)).
Instead, the Due Process Clause requires that the defendant “target[] the District or its
customers in some way.” Id. The defendant may do so through “efforts directed toward the
forum state, such as ‘special state-related design, advertising, advice, [or] marketing.’” Id.(quoting Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 889 (Breyer, J., concurring)). A “‘regular flow or regular course
of sales’ in the forum” may also help demonstrate targeting. Id. at 785 (quoting Nicastro, 564
U.S. at 889 (Breyer, J., concurring)). Finally, “[t]he plaintiff ’s claims . . . must arise out of or
relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
On the current record, Staggs has not yet established that exercising specific personal
jurisdiction over Smith & Wesson would be appropriate. He alleges that the company conducts
“business systematically and continuously” with parties operating throughout the District, see
Compl., ¶ 15, and that it “purposefully avails” itself of the District’s laws through its sales, as
well as by directing “products and activities towards the forum state.” Pl. Repl. at 9. Plaintiff
has not, however, alleged any “specific facts” to support these assertions or to “plausibly
demonstrate Defendant’s ‘minimum contacts’ with the District.” Fiorentine v. Sarton Puerto
Rico, LLC, 486 F. Supp. 3d 377, 385–86 (D.D.C. 2020) (holding that court need not accept as
true “conclusory assertion[s]” of jurisdiction unsupported by “specific facts”). This Court,
therefore, is unable to conclude at this point that the company’s contacts with the District are
13
sufficient for it to “reasonably anticipate being haled into court” and be fairly subject to its
jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
3. Jurisdictional Discovery
A court may nevertheless provide a plaintiff with the opportunity to supplement her
factual allegations via jurisdictional discovery. In fact, a court “has broad discretion in its
resolution of [jurisdictional] discovery problems,” and “[t]he standard for permitting
jurisdictional discovery is quite liberal.” App Dynamic ehf v. Vignisson, 87 F. Supp. 3d 322,
329 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In general, jurisdictional
discovery should be “granted freely” so long as the plaintiff demonstrates “a good faith belief
that such discovery will enable [her] to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Carr, 814 F.2d at 764(plaintiff is “entitled to a fair opportunity to inquire into [defendant’s] affiliations with the
District”).
Smith & Wesson argues that Staggs has not met this standard because he fails to make a
“detailed showing of what discovery he wishes to conduct,” as well as the likely results of such
discovery. See Pl. Repl. at 3-4. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s allegations, construed liberally,
see Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, demonstrate a good-faith belief that discovery will enable him to
show that Defendant targets the District for sales. Not only has Staggs alleged that the company
“manufactures firearms for commercial markets [in the District]” and regularly does business
with government contractors operating here, see Compl., ¶ 15, but he also points to a sales
representative employed by Defendant and responsible for sales within the District. See Pl.
Repl. at 6. Plaintiff’s repeated references to sales practices focused on the D.C. market amount
to more than just “generalized predictions” that Defendant has customers here. See Atlantigas
14
Corp. v. Nisource, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 2d 34, 53 (D.D.C. 2003). Staggs’s allegations indicate,
instead, a good-faith belief that Defendant targets the District in some way. Although these
allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, they suggest at least
“some facts about what additional discovery could produce.” Shaheen v. Smith, 994 F. Supp. 2d
77, 89 (D.D.C. 2013).
Taken together, Plaintiff’s allegations indicate a reasonable belief that he will uncover,
through jurisdictional discovery, the extent to which Defendant targets the District for sales using
efforts such as “special state-related . . . advertising, advice, [or] marketing,” Williams, 756 F.3d
at 785 (quoting Nicastro, 564 U.S. at 889 (Breyer, J., concurring)), be it through the volume of
contracts with D.C.-based contractors or D.C.-specific sales practices by Defendant’s staff. See
also Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 798 F. Supp. 2d 102, 120–21 (D.D.C. 2011) (ordering discovery
when evidence of defendant’s “licensing, franchising, or similar agreements” with other
defendants could establish personal jurisdiction). Contrary to the company’s assertion, Staggs
need not establish with absolute clarity what facts he expects discovery to unearth, but rather that
discovery “can supplement [his] jurisdictional allegations,” as well as some indication of
“how . . . discovery would help [him] discover anything new.” Vignisson, 87 F. Supp. 3d at 329
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s reference to
“business plans,” “budgets,” “advertising,” “marketing,” and “sales” all indicate types of
evidence plausibly related to Defendant’s efforts to “target[] the District or its customers in some
way.” Williams, 756 F.3d at 785. It is not “mere conjecture or speculation” to imagine how
such evidence may reveal that Smith & Wesson directs its “products and activities towards the
forum state.” Pl. Repl. at 9. With the benefit of such discovery, the Court will be better able to
determine whether Defendant’s contacts with the District are sufficient to establish personal
15
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pinkett v. Dr. Leonard’s Healthcare Corp., No. 18-1656, 2018 WL
5464793, at *5–6 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2018) (ordering jurisdictional discovery in products-liability
case).
IV. Conclusion
The Court, accordingly, will grant ASP and Liberty Mutual’s Motions to Dismiss. It will
hold Smith & Wesson’s in abeyance pending jurisdictional discovery. A separate Order so
stating will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: February 14, 2022
16