44-0 Plaintiffs Brief RE: Scope of Jurisdictional Discovery

Jurisdictional Discovery Brief

October 19th, 2020

 

“Well established Ninth Circuit law provides that Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct jurisdictional discovery bearing on whether Defendants Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“WTPA”) and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (“WTNY”) were alter egos of each other during the period of time relevant to this case.”

 

“The affidavits of WTPA in-house counsel Brumley –WTPA’s only supporting evidence for its motion to dismiss – have created more questions than answers. First, Mr. Brumley fails to address WTPA’s corporate relationship with WTNY during the period 1973-1992. Instead, Mr. Brumley asserts—in the present tense—that WTPA “has its own assets, liabilities, offices, board of directors, and offices, separate from every other entity used by Jehovah’s Witnesses” and that “WTPA is not the direct or indirect parent or subsidiary of any other corporation involved in this action.” Aff. of Brumley at ¶¶ 5-6. In sum, WTPA’s only evidence on personal jurisdiction conspicuously fails to address the period relevant to this case.”

 

“At the same time, there are many material details of WTPA’s relationship with WTNY that cannot be resolved with publicly available information, including but not limited to: the identities of both entities’ executives and board of directors during the relevant time-period; whether WTPA and WTNY comingled assets during the relevant time period; whether WTPA is collecting and holding assets while WTNY holds liabilities; and the degree to which WTPA controlled and directed the activities of WTNY or vis-a-versa. Ninth Circuit law provides for discovery to unearth these sorts of facts when analyzing personal the jurisdiction of closely related corporate entities.”

File Type: pdf
Categories: Caekaert v. Watchtower
Tags: Caekaert v. Watchtower
justice gavel
Share: