Summary
This memorandum from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee addresses Defendant Brian Kawamura’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal regarding the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court analyzes whether the application of the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction presents a controlling question of law that would materially advance the termination of the litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Concluding that the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact and that an immediate appeal would not substantially shorten the proceedings, the court denies the motion to certify for interlocutory appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is a final, appealable decision eligible for certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
- Whether the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction presents a controlling question of law for purposes of certification.
Holdings
- The court denied certification because Kawamura failed to satisfy the first statutory requirement (controlling question of law) and the third requirement (material advancement of litigation).
- The court held that the conspiracy theory is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore does not satisfy the controlling‑question requirement for certification.
Key quotations
“The Court found that Plaintiffs stated a claim that Defendant Kawamura joined a civil conspiracy and that the Court had personal jurisdiction.” (Doc. 92 at 24)
“Certification for interlocutory appeal is granted “sparingly and only in exceptional cases.”” (Doc. 97 at 3)
Factual background
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants operated a fraudulent scheme involving Rhino Onward International, LLC (ROI). Defendant Brian Kawamura, as CEO of ROI, participated in at least one investment call, knew false statements were being made, failed to correct them, and allowed funds to be diverted to personal use. Plaintiffs assert personal jurisdiction over Kawamura based on a conspiracy theory.
Procedural history
The district court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding personal jurisdiction under the conspiracy theory. Kawamura sought certification of interlocutory appeal; the court applied the three statutory criteria and denied certification.