Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 07-1033
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:06-cv-01024-AW)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 2, 2007
PER CURIAM:
George A. Brooks (Brooks) and Brooks Industries, Inc.
(collectively
Plaintiffs)
Developments,
Inc.
sued
(Motsenbocker),
Motsenbocker
Gregg
A.
Advanced
Motsenbocker
of
contract,
Plaintiffs
are
California.
misrepresentation,
located
in
Maryland
and
and
the
related
claims.
Defendants
in
their
motion
with
sworn
declaration
Defendants
from
Gregg,
- 2 -
Brooks
timely appeals. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand.
When a defendant files a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2), challenging the courts personal jurisdiction,
the question is one for the judge and the plaintiff, as the party
invoking the courts jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing
the necessary jurisdictional facts, e.g. the existence of minimum
contacts between the defendant and the forum state.
Combs v.
Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989); see Myland Labs.,
Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1993).
Where the
motion papers alone, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie
showing of a sufficient jurisdictional basis.
Id.
The court, in
deciding whether a plaintiff has met this burden, must construe all
relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff,
assume
credibility,
and
draw
the
most
favorable
Moreover,
summary
disposition
conflicting affidavits.
should
not
be
made
based
on
because
the
jurisdictional
facts
were
disputed
by
- 4 -