Car KO, LLC v. Auffenberg Ford, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CAR KO, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action 2:25-cv-8
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
AUFFENBERG FORD, INC.,
Defendant,
OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Fourth-Party Defendant CMD, LLC d/b/a McLaren Charlotte’s
(“McLaren 	Charlotte”) 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	Fourth-Party 	Plaintiff’s 	GiveMeTheVin, 	LLC’s
(“GMTV”) complaint and Third-Party Defendant RP Exotics, LLC’s (“RP”) crossclaims. (Doc.
33). As relevant here, McLaren Charlotte asserts that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
it. (See Doc. 33 at 8–10 (arguing McLaren Charlotte lacks the requisite minimum contacts with
Ohio “to pass constitutional muster”)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (allowing a party to assert a
lack of personal jurisdiction defense by motion)). 	In response, GMTV argues that personal
jurisdiction requirements are met under both the Federal Odometer Act and Ohio’s Long-Arm
Statute. 	(Doc. 39 at 2–6). 	Of the latter, however, GMTV requests that the Court permit
jurisdictional discovery to “fully flush out [the relevant] factors” and to “determine the volume of
business McLaren Charlotte has in Ohio and to what extent its cars could end up in Ohio.” (Id. at
4). RP’s response makes similar arguments and a matching request. (Doc. 36 (arguing that “at
minimum” jurisdictional discovery should be permitted)).
GMTV subsequently filed a Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. 40).
McLaren Charlotte opposes any jurisdictional discovery, stating that discovery would be a “costly
Case: 2:25-cv-00008-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 47 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
fishing expedition” given GMTV and RP’s attenuated personal jurisdiction claims. (Doc. 45; see
also Doc. 41 at 11–12; Doc. 44 at 6–7)). The Court considers GMTV’s Motion, and RP’s related
request, now.
I. 	STANDARD
“Presented with a properly supported 12(b)(2) motion and opposition, the court has three
procedural alternatives: it may decide the motion upon the affidavits alone; it may permit discovery
in aid of deciding the motion; or it may conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve any apparent
factual questions.” Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991). A district court
has “discretion to select which method it will follow[.]” Id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The crux of McLaren Charlotte’s motion to dismiss is whether McLaren Charlotte has
sufficient connections for personal jurisdiction. 	McLaren Charlotte says no, providing a
declaration attesting that McLaren Charlotte does not operate a car dealership in Ohio, does not
engage in targeted marketing activities within the Ohio, and is not authorized to engage in business
in Ohio. 	(Doc. 33-1). 	On the other hand, GMTV and RP argue that McLaren Charlotte’s
connections are likely sufficient by virtue of its website, its participation in national advertising
and cross-state dealer or franchise programs, its car sales, and a potentially related Ohio LLC—
but they need more information to be sure. (Doc. 36; Doc. 39 at 4–5; Doc. 46 (noting McLaren
Charlotte’s self-serving affidavit does not provide enough detail about how its website operates or
about sales figures relevant to personal jurisdiction)); see also Doc. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3, 36-4, 36-5,
36-6, 39-1). Given these unresolved questions, the Court finds that jurisdictional discovery is the
best option to move forward. See, e.g., Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Bob’s Stores
LLC, No. 2:13-CV-1261, 2014 WL 1045994, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2014) (allowing
Case: 2:25-cv-00008-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 47 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
jurisdictional discovery to explore whether and what merchandise was sold via the defendant’s
website in Ohio); High 5 Sportswear, Inc. v. H5G, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-401, 2016 WL 1407887, at
*2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2016) (permitting jurisdictional discovery where a defendant’s affidavit
supporting a motion to dismiss failed to provide specific sales figures for Ohio or information
regarding the functioning of its website).
Nonetheless, 	“[a]lthough 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	26 	contemplates 	broad
discovery, courts must ensure that jurisdictional discovery does not undermine the due process
considerations that personal jurisdiction is designed to protect.” In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
No. 2:11-md2-233, 2012 WL 4361430, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, GMTV and RP shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to engage in limited
jurisdictional discovery. 	The discovery must be restricted to jurisdictional issues raised in or
relevant to McLaren Charlotte’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties
must work together expediently to define the contours of this targeted discovery, keeping in mind
that both GMTV and RP have assured the Court their discovery needs are “minimal.” (Doc. 36 at
10; Doc. 46 at 2).
If McLaren Charlotte believes a discovery request exceeds the scope and purpose of limited
jurisdictional 	discovery, 	it 	is 	instructed 	to 	contact 	the 	Undersigned’s 	chambers 	at
jolson_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov to arrange a telephone status conference. Prior to contacting
the Court, however, the parties must attempt to work through their dispute collaboratively and
certify they have attempted to resolve their differences.
GMTV and RP are both GRANTED leave to supplement their memorandums in
opposition to McLaren Charlotte’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on or before
Case: 2:25-cv-00008-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 47 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
January 22, 2026. McLaren Charlotte’s supplemented replies are due on or before February 5,
2026. The supplemental responses and the supplemental replies shall not exceed seven pages.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Fourth-Party Plaintiff GiveMeTheVin LLC’s Motion for Leave
to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. 40), and Third-Party Defendant RP Exotics LLC’s
request for the same (Doc. 36), are GRANTED. 	The parties shall have 45 days to conduct
jurisdictional discovery consistent with this Order. 	GMTV and RP are GRANTED leave to
supplement their memorandums in opposition to McLaren Charlotte’s motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction on or before January 22, 2026. 	McLaren Charlotte’s supplemented
replies are due on or before February 5, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	December 8, 2025 	/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00008-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 47 Filed: 12/08/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>