James Michael Davis v. Bella Vista Enterprises, LLC, et al.

No. 2:26-CV-00099-DCLC-CRW (E.D. Tenn. June 8, 2026) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division · June 8, 2026 · No. 2:26-CV-00099-DCLC-CRW

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss a contract dispute concerning the purchase of corporate stock. The court held that it lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction over the California defendants, concluding that communications and payments directed to Tennessee did not establish purposeful availment. The court denied or deemed moot Plaintiff’s associated motions.

Holdings

  1. An amended complaint ordinarily supersedes the original complaint, but a motion to dismiss is not moot when the amended pleading retains a defect raised in the original motion; the court may treat the motion as directed to the amended complaint.
  2. The court lacked general personal jurisdiction over Bella Vista and the individual defendant because Bella Vista was incorporated and principally located in California, and the individual defendant was domiciled in California.
  3. The court lacked specific personal jurisdiction because Defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Tennessee.
  4. The court did not reach Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) arguments concerning veil piercing and unjust enrichment because the absence of personal jurisdiction was dispositive.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Defendants' motion to dismiss became moot when Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of course.
  2. Whether the court had general personal jurisdiction over Bella Vista or the individual defendant.
  3. Whether Defendants purposefully availed themselves of Tennessee so that the court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the contract-related claims.
  4. Whether the court needed to reach Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) arguments concerning veil piercing and unjust enrichment after determining that personal jurisdiction was absent.
  5. Whether Plaintiff showed good cause for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (29)

  • Ky. Press Ass'n v. Kentucky, 355 F. Supp. 2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005)(followed)
  • Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Klein by Klein v. Caterpillar Inc., 581 F. Supp. 3d 912, 919 (E.D. Mich. 2022)(followed)
  • Yates v. Applied Performance Techs., 205 F.R.D. 497, 499 (S.D. Ohio 2002)(cited)
  • Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, 66 F. Supp. 2d 638, 641 n. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1999)(followed)
  • Patton Elec. Co. v. Rampart Air, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 704, 712 (N.D. Ind. 1991)(followed)
  • Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2002)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…