Plaintiff sued manufacturers of capacitors, most of whom are based in Japan and South Korea, for engaging in price-fixing. One of the defendants, Nissei Electric Co., filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court struck arguments based on successor liability, because the argument was raised only on the reply brief. The court then denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff made adequate allegations for jurisdictional facts. The court noted that, because the jurisdictional facts are highly contested, the defendant may raise a motion to dismiss at a later time.
I wonder if the court would have come to a different ruling if this were a case with fewer defendants. In a case involving fewer defendants, one can imagine the court ordering jurisdictional discovery here in order to dispose the case more quickly. Instead, the defendant here will have to continue on the ride for the time being before it can get off.