Rosendahl Corp.; Patau v.
FUIFATU SEFO PATAU, Plaintiff
ROSENDAHL-CORPORATION, PTE CORPORATION,
UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIES, Inc., and RALSTON
PURINA COMPANY, Defendants
High Court of American Samoa
CA No. 29-89
August 28, 1989
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for 1ack of in personam jurisdiction would be continued in order to allow discovery on the issues of fact pertaining to jurisdiction, in light of the early[12ASR2d67] posture of the case and of the contentions of plaintiff that he had not had sufficient time to meet the allegations set fo11h in defendant’s affidavits denying jurisdiction and that defendant would not be unduly prejudiced by the resulting delay. T.C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2).
Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, MATA’UTIA, Associate Judge, and AFUOLA, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Plaintiffs, William H, Reardon and Donald F. Hildre
For Defendant Ralston Purina Co., Robert A. Dennison III
For Defendant University Industries, Roy J.D. Hall, Jr.
University Industries, Inc., moves, pursuant to Trial Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2), to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint against it for lack of in personam jurisdiction. Plaintiff Patau argues that he has not had sufficient time to mt the allegations set forth in defendant’s supporting affidavits and thus requests permission to undertake depositions and other discovery on the issues of fact raised by the motion. Plaintiff further contends that defendant will not be unduly prejudiced by the resulting delay.
Given the early posture of this case we hold that plaintiff should be given the opportunity to conduct discovery as to the jurisdictional facts. Following discovery, plaintiff shall be required at an evidentiary hearing to prove jurisdiction by the preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued and either party has leave to conduct discovery as to the jurisdictional facts.
It is so Ordered.