Dental Dynamics v. Jolly Dental Group ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                     FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    PUBLISH                January 9, 2020
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS               Clerk of Court
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    DENTAL DYNAMICS, LLC, an
    Oklahoma limited liability company,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                                  No. 18-6107
    JOLLY DENTAL GROUP, LLC, an
    Arkansas limited liability company,
    doing business as Jolly Family
    Dentistry; SCOTT D. JOLLY, DDS,
    an individual,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
    (D.C. NO. 5:17-CV-01216-M)
    Anthony W. Billings (Kevin R. Donelson and Socorro A. Dooley on the brief),
    Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
    for Appellant.
    George S. Freedman, Spencer Fane LLP (Sarah R. Clutts, Spencer Fane LLP, and
    Lance B. Phillips, Phillips Law Office, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City,
    Oklahoma, for Appellee.
    Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
    TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.
    This case presents a question of personal jurisdiction. Namely, whether a
    federal court sitting in Oklahoma has specific personal jurisdiction over Dr. Scott
    Jolly—a dentist and Arkansas resident—and the limited liability company through
    which he runs his dentistry practice, Jolly Dental Group, LLC. The plaintiff
    below, Dental Dynamics, LLC, argues that three isolated business interactions and
    an allegedly fraudulent contract suffice to establish federal court jurisdiction over
    its breach of contract and fraud claims.
    We disagree. With respect to Dental Dynamics’s breach of contract claim,
    Jolly Dental’s contacts with Oklahoma are too random, fortuitous, and attenuated
    to establish personal jurisdiction there. With respect to Dental Dynamics’s fraud
    claim, we conclude that Dental Dynamics fails to show Dr. Jolly’s allegedly
    tortious conduct sufficiently targeted Oklahoma to establish personal jurisdiction
    there. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Dental
    Dynamics’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    I. Background
    Dental Dynamics is an Oklahoma entity with its principal place of business
    in Oklahoma. Kellie Haller is Dental Dynamics’s sole member and manager.
    Dental Dynamics specializes in brokering transactions involving pre-owned dental
    equipment between dentists across the United States. For any particular sale,
    -2-
    “Dental Dynamics purchases the dental equipment directly from the seller dentist
    and resells the equipment to the buyer dentist.” App. at 37.
    Dr. Jolly is a dentist residing in Arkansas and is the owner, manager, or
    member of Jolly Dental—an Arkansas entity with its principal place of business in
    North Little Rock, Arkansas. Dr. Jolly operates his dentistry practice through
    Jolly Dental.
    Since 2008, Dr. Jolly has inquired into prospective business transactions
    with Dental Dynamics on three occasions. First, in 2008, Dr. Jolly contacted
    Dental Dynamics regarding the potential sale of a pre-owned piece of equipment
    he owned. Haller informed Dr. Jolly that she could not sell the machine. Next, in
    May 2017, Dr. Jolly engaged Dental Dynamics to broker the sale of a 2014
    Planmex Promax MID X-Ray Unit (X-Ray unit) that is the subject of the present
    lawsuit. Third, in June 2017, Dr. Jolly contacted Dental Dynamics regarding the
    purchase of a separate X-Ray unit. Jolly Dental paid Dental Dynamics the
    purchase price for this unit. But after a defect was discovered with the machine,
    Dental Dynamics returned the purchase price to Jolly Dental. 1 The parties
    prepared and executed these transactions through telephonic, email, and text
    communications.
    1
    The record is silent on whether the X-Ray unit involved in the June 2017
    transaction was ever shipped to Jolly Dental.
    -3-
    Dental Dynamics’s present claims arise out of the second transaction. On
    or around May 20, 2017, Dental Dynamics secured the sale of the X-Ray unit
    from Jolly Dental to Dr. Joiner, a dentist practicing in California. On May 26,
    2017, Jolly Dental, through Dr. Jolly, executed a bill of sale selling the X-Ray
    unit to Dental Dynamics. The bill of sale represents that the X-Ray unit is in
    “perfect working condition” and that the sale includes the X-Ray unit’s hardware,
    software, manuals, and “all accessories and any other items pertaining” to the X-
    Ray unit. Id. at 14–15. The negotiations pertaining to the bill of sale were
    conducted through text messages and email. To pay for the X-Ray unit and
    associated items, “Dr. Joiner tendered the sales price to Dental Dynamics in
    Oklahoma, and Dental Dynamics subsequently mailed a check . . . to Dr. Jolly.”
    Id. at 36.
    The bill of sale notes that “disassembly, packaging, and shipment” would
    be handled by an independent support company. Id. at 14. Dental Dynamics does
    not dispute that the X-Ray unit was shipped directly from Dr. Jolly’s offices in
    Arkansas to Dr. Joiner’s offices in California without ever entering Oklahoma.
    After receipt of the X-Ray unit, Dr. Joiner discovered that it was not in perfect
    working condition as represented. Due to certain defects and missing hardware
    and software, the X-Ray unit Dr. Joiner received was “worthless” in that it would
    -4-
    “cost more to repair than to purchase a brand new [unit].” Id. at 9–10. Dr. Joiner
    notified Dental Dynamics of the X-Ray unit’s unsatisfactory condition.
    In turn, Dental Dynamics brought the present action in federal court in
    Oklahoma, alleging breach of contract against Jolly Dental and fraud against Dr.
    Jolly. Dental Dynamics alleges Jolly Dental breached its contractual obligations
    outlined in the bill of sale by “failing to properly disassemble and crate the X-Ray
    Unit; failing to provide the software and computer hardware required . . . and
    materially misrepresenting the condition of the X-Ray Unit.” Id. at 10. With
    respect to its fraud allegations, Dental Dynamics alleges Dr. Jolly knowingly
    made false representations regarding the X-Ray unit’s condition and his intention
    to satisfactorily disassemble and crate the X-Ray unit to induce Dental Dynamics
    to secure the sale of the unit.
    In response, Dr. Jolly and Jolly Dental (together Jolly Dental) moved to
    dismiss the action for lack of specific personal jurisdiction. Jolly Dental argues it
    lacks the requisite minimum contacts with Oklahoma to establish jurisdiction and
    that, even if the minimum contacts test is satisfied, exercising jurisdiction would
    be unreasonable.
    The district court granted Jolly Dental’s motion, holding Dental Dynamics
    failed to establish specific personal jurisdiction over either its breach of contract
    or fraud claim. Dental Dynamics appealed, contending both that the district court
    -5-
    erred in concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Jolly Dental and, in the
    alternative, that the district court should have at least granted limited discovery
    on the jurisdictional issues prior to dismissal.
    II. Analysis
    Before discussing the merits, we explain the standard of review on appeal
    and the applicable legal framework.
    A. Standard of Review
    We review dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. See Old
    Republic Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 
    877 F.3d 895
    , 903 (10th Cir. 2017).
    Dental Dynamics, as the plaintiff below, bears the burden of establishing personal
    jurisdiction. See 
    id.
     Where, as here, a complaint is dismissed at the preliminary
    motion to dismiss stage based only upon the complaint and accompanying
    affidavits, Dental Dynamics need only make a prima facie showing of personal
    jurisdiction. See Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 
    514 F.3d 1063
    ,
    1069 (10th Cir. 2008). Dental Dynamics must make this showing with respect to
    each of the claims alleged. See 4A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Adam
    N. Steinman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069.7 (4th ed. 2015) (“[I]t is
    important to remember that a plaintiff also must secure personal jurisdiction over
    a defendant with respect to each claim she asserts.”). Dental Dynamics may make
    this showing through affidavits or other written materials. See AST Sports Sci.,
    -6-
    Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 
    514 F.3d 1054
    , 1057 (10th Cir. 2008). At this stage, all
    factual disputes are resolved in Dental Dynamics’s favor. See Old Republic, 877
    F.3d at 903. Conclusory allegations, however, need not be credited by this court
    and “will not suffice to defeat a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion.” Dudnikov, 
    514 F.3d at 1073
    .
    B. Legal Framework
    1. Personal Jurisdiction
    To show personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in a diversity action,
    Dental Dynamics must demonstrate that jurisdiction is proper under the laws of
    the forum state—in this case Oklahoma—and that the exercise of jurisdiction
    complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Walden v.
    Fiore, 
    571 U.S. 277
    , 282 (2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). 2 This requires us to
    focus on state law, and particularly, the relevant state’s long-arm statute. That
    statute establishes the extent to which the state intends its courts to exercise
    jurisdiction over nonresidents. Oklahoma’s long-arm statute authorizes courts to
    2
    A defendant’s contacts with the forum state may give rise to two variants
    of personal jurisdiction: general or specific. See Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 903.
    General personal jurisdiction means a court may exercise jurisdiction over an out-
    of-state party for any purpose. Id. Specific personal jurisdiction means a court
    may exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state party only if the cause of action
    relates to the party’s contacts with the forum state. Id. at 904; see also Daimler
    AG v. Bauman, 
    571 U.S. 117
    , 126–27 (2014). Dental Dynamics asserts specific
    personal jurisdiction is the variant “principally at issue.” Aplt. Br. at 6. Because
    Dental Dynamics advances no arguments in favor of general personal jurisdiction,
    we treat specific personal jurisdiction as the only variant at issue.
    -7-
    “exercise jurisdiction on any basis consistent with the Constitution of this state
    and the Constitution of the United States.” Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 12, § 2004(F).
    Neither party raises any objection based on the Oklahoma constitution.
    Accordingly, the analysis collapses into a single due process inquiry. See Old
    Republic, 877 F.3d at 903; Newsome v. Gallacher, 
    722 F.3d 1257
    , 1264 (10th Cir.
    2013).
    The Due Process Clause authorizes personal jurisdiction if two elements are
    met. First, a defendant must have “purposefully established minimum contacts
    within the forum state.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 
    326 U.S. 310
    , 316 (1945).
    Second, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with traditional
    notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
    
    471 U.S. 462
    , 476 (1985).
    a. Minimum Contacts
    The minimum contacts test for specific personal jurisdiction has two
    requirements: (1) a defendant must have “purposefully directed its activities at
    residents of the forum state,” 3 and (2) the plaintiff’s injuries must arise out of the
    defendant’s forum-related activities. Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 904. With
    respect to the first requirement, purposeful direction ensures that defendants will
    3
    The “purposeful direction” prong of the minimum contacts test is
    sometimes referred to as the “purposeful availment” prong. See, e.g., Dudnikov,
    
    514 F.3d at 1071
     (noting the interchangeability of these terms).
    -8-
    not be haled into court in foreign jurisdictions solely as a result of “random,
    fortuitous, or attenuated contacts.” Burger King, 
    471 U.S. at 475
    . The mere
    foreseeability of causing injury in another state is insufficient on its own to
    establish purposeful direction. See Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 905.
    With respect to the second requirement, ensuring the injury arises out of a
    defendant’s forum related activities makes sure an adequate connection exists
    between the forum and the underlying controversy. See id. at 908.
    b. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
    If the minimum contacts test is met, we must then assess whether exercising
    personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
    justice. See id. at 909. To do so, we consider the following factors: (1) the
    burden on the defendant; (2) the forum state’s interest in resolving the dispute;
    (3) the plaintiff’s interest in receiving convenient and effective relief; (4) the
    interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of
    controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering
    fundamental social policies. See id.; see also Pro Axess, Inc. v. Orlux Distrib.,
    Inc., 
    428 F.3d 1270
    , 1279–80 (10th Cir. 2005).
    Defendant’s showing under these factors operates on a “sliding scale.” AST
    Sports Sci., 
    514 F.3d at 1061
    . The weaker a plaintiff’s showing with respect to
    -9-
    minimum contacts, “the less a defendant need show in terms of unreasonableness
    to defeat jurisdiction.” 
    Id.
    C. Application
    We first address Dental Dynamics’s claims with respect to personal
    jurisdiction and then turn to its request for additional discovery.
    1. Personal Jurisdiction
    We conclude Dental Dynamics fails to establish jurisdiction over either
    claim because it cannot satisfy the purposeful direction prong of the minimum
    contacts test. 4 Additionally, we find that it would not be reasonable to assert
    jurisdiction even were the minimum contacts test satisfied.
    a. Breach of Contract Claim
    Analyzing purposeful direction with respect to Dental Dynamics’s breach
    of contract claim requires us to look to Jolly Dental’s continuing “relationships
    with the forum state and its residents.” Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 905; see also
    Burger King, 
    471 U.S. at 472
    . Although contractual obligations may create
    sufficient ties to establish jurisdiction, an out-of-state resident’s contract with a
    resident of the forum state is insufficient, standing alone, to create personal
    jurisdiction. See Burger King, 
    471 U.S. at 478
    ; Benton v. Cameco Corp., 375
    4
    Jolly Dental does not meaningfully dispute that the “arising out of” prong
    of the minimum contacts test is satisfied. Accordingly, we do not address that
    prong here.
    -10-
    F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2004). In Burger King, the Supreme Court eschewed
    such “mechanical” tests in favor of looking to the “business negotiations,” “future
    consequences” of the contract, and the “actual course of dealing” between the
    parties. Burger King, 
    471 U.S. at
    478–79.
    Here, the record shows that the parties’ entire business relationship
    comprises three transactions over nine years. None of these transactions was
    negotiated or executed in person. Each transaction was a discrete occurrence,
    unrelated to the others in any meaningful way. On only two occasions did the
    parties reach an agreement, and only once—in the transaction subject to this
    lawsuit—was that agreement substantially performed.
    These contacts are insufficient to show purposeful direction. Each
    transaction concerned the isolated sale or prospective sale of a piece of dental
    equipment without any long-term or continuing obligations involving Oklahoma.
    See Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 910 (finding no purposeful direction even where a
    contract with a forum-state entity was accompanied by the parties’ contemplation
    of “some potentially ongoing consequences” because the record lacked evidence
    of “any significant course of dealing” or long-term contractual commitments
    associated with the forum state). Moreover, the transactions implicated
    Oklahoma in only an attenuated fashion, as Dental Dynamics serves as a broker in
    transactions between dentists located across the United States. See C5 Med.
    -11-
    Werks, LLC v. CeramTec GMBH, 
    937 F.3d 1319
    , 1325 (10th Cir. 2019) (holding
    no purposeful direction established where a party attended numerous trade shows
    in the forum state, but the location was selected by a third-party).
    Dental Dynamics analogizes to Burger King, but the comparison confirms
    no purposeful direction exists here. In Burger King, the Supreme Court found
    minimal contacts satisfied due to a heavily negotiated and “carefully structured”
    20-year franchise agreement that “envisioned continuing and wide-reaching
    contacts” with the forum state. 
    471 U.S. at
    478–80. But in this case none of
    Burger King’s persuasive factors are present. The primary contract that Dental
    Dynamics relies on is a two-page bill of sale negotiated over email that envisions
    no enduring relationship between the parties and concerns only the sale of a
    single piece of equipment that never physically passed through the forum state.
    Dental Dynamics also urges personal jurisdiction is warranted in light of
    the parties’ “ongoing business” relations and Jolly Dental’s “substantial
    connection” with Oklahoma. See App. at 37 (averring that “Dental Dynamics and
    Dr. Jolly and [Jolly Dental], by and through Dr. Jolly, were engaged in a business
    relationship since approximately 2008”). Such conclusory allegations are
    insufficient to establish jurisdiction. See Dudnikov, 
    514 F.3d at 1073
    . Nor does
    the allegation that “Dr. Jolly and Ms. Haller exchanged text messages many
    times” suffice. See Rambo v. Am. S. Ins. Co., 
    839 F.2d 1415
    , 1418 (10th Cir.
    -12-
    1988) (“Ordinarily ‘use of the mails, telephone, or other international
    communications simply do not qualify as purposeful activity.’” (quoting Peterson
    v. Kennedy, 
    771 F.2d 1244
    , 1262 (9th Cir. 1985))).
    In sum, the contemplated and executed business transactions between the
    parties are too attenuated to demonstrate Jolly Dental established sufficient
    minimum contacts with Oklahoma.
    b. Fraud Claim
    When analyzing tort-based claims such as Dental Dynamics’s fraud claim,
    we look to “the harmful effects [of Dr. Jolly’s conduct] in the forum state” to
    assess purposeful direction. Old Republic, 877 F.3d at 905. Purposeful direction
    in this context has three elements: (1) an intentional action; (2) expressly aimed at
    the forum state; and (3) with knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt
    in the forum state. See Newsome, 722 F.3d at 1264–65; see also Dudnikov, 
    514 F.3d at 1072
    .
    This framework for analyzing personal jurisdiction in the intentional tort
    context stems originally from the Supreme Court’s decision in Calder v. Jones.
    
    465 U.S. 783
    , 790 (1984) (holding personal jurisdiction in California proper in a
    libel suit by a California resident against a Florida reporter). In Walden v. Fiore,
    the Supreme Court elaborated on its holding in Calder. See 
    571 U.S. 277
    , 286–91
    (2014). In Walden, a DEA agent in Georgia stopped two Nevadans who claimed
    -13-
    to be professional gamblers returning home with approximately $97,000 in cash
    winnings. The DEA agent seized the currency and drafted an affidavit in
    conjunction with the forfeiture proceedings. The Nevadans filed suit in federal
    court in Nevada alleging that the DEA agent tortiously drafted a false affidavit.
    A divided Ninth Circuit held personal jurisdiction existed under Calder and its
    progeny because the DEA agent “expressly aimed” his submission of the allegedly
    false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would
    affect persons with a significant connection to Nevada. See id. at 282.
    The Supreme Court reversed. In doing so, the Court clarified that
    knowledge of an alleged victim’s out-of-state status, standing alone, cannot
    confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant engaging in allegedly tortious
    activity. The Court reiterated that the focus of the personal jurisdiction analysis
    is on the defendant’s relationship with the forum state, even in the intentional tort
    context. See id. at 282–83 (“[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the
    defendant and the forum.”).
    Subsequent case law from this court confirms a defendant’s interaction with
    a plaintiff—even when allegedly tortious—is insufficient to establish personal
    jurisdiction. See Rockwood Select Asset Fund XI (6)-1, LLC v. Devine, 
    750 F.3d 1178
    , 1180 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding alleged falsehoods in an opinion letter sent
    from an out-of-state law firm defendant to a plaintiff in the forum state failed to
    -14-
    establish jurisdiction); see also Anzures v. Flagship Rest. Grp., 
    819 F.3d 1277
    ,
    1282 (10th Cir. 2016) (“Walden teaches that personal jurisdiction cannot be based
    on interactions with a plaintiff known to bear a strong connection to the forum
    state.” (quoting Rockwood, 750 F.3d at 1180)); C5 Med. Werks, 937 F.3d at 1324
    (“[M]erely interacting with a plaintiff known to bear a strong connection to the
    forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks and
    citation omitted)).
    These principles dictate the outcome here. As discussed above, Dental
    Dynamics fails to show Dr. Jolly had any connections with Oklahoma outside of
    the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations and isolated incidents of outreach to
    Dental Dynamics. These communications into the forum-state are insufficient to
    establish Dr. Jolly “expressly aimed” his allegedly tortious misrepresentations at
    Oklahoma. See Rockwood, 750 F.3d at 1180. Nor does the fact that Dr. Jolly
    knew Dental Dynamics was an Oklahoma entity change this analysis. See C5
    Med. Werks, 937 F.3d at 1324.
    Dental Dynamics relies on two of our cases decided before Walden, but
    neither is applicable. In Newsome, this court held personal jurisdiction existed
    where Oklahoma, the forum state, was the “focal point” of the alleged tort.
    Moreover, the defendants in Newsome had greater contacts with the forum state
    than Dr. Jolly here. For instance, the defendants had ongoing managerial duties
    -15-
    with respect to a company conducting business in the forum state and several had
    traveled to the forum state. Newsome, 722 F.3d at 1262–63.
    Similarly, in Dudnikov, we held personal jurisdiction existed in Colorado
    over an out-of-state company that sought to shut down an online auction a
    Colorado company was holding. See 
    514 F.3d 1063
    , 1070 (10th Cir. 2008).
    Unlike the conduct in Dudnikov, the allegedly tortious conduct here is only
    incidental to the forum state. Taking Dental Dynamics’s allegations as true, we
    can at most conclude Dr. Jolly intentionally misrepresented the working condition
    of the X-Ray unit to effectuate a sale to Dr. Joiner in California. The X-Ray unit
    never passed through Oklahoma and the only effects felt in Oklahoma arose from
    the incidental fact that the broker—Dental Dynamics—was located there.
    Such incidental connections are insufficient to establish personal
    jurisdiction.
    c. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
    Finally, even if the minimum contacts test were satisfied, we find the
    exercise of personal jurisdiction would not comport with traditional notions of
    fair play and substantial justice.
    Looking first to the burden of mounting an out-of-state defense, we find
    this factor weighs in Jolly Dental’s favor. Defending an action in Oklahoma
    despite having no business dealings, property, or offices there is burdensome. See
    -16-
    Medberg v. Goins, Rash & Cain, Inc., No. 15-CV-0054, 
    2015 WL 3486617
    , at
    *17 (N.D. Okla. June 2, 2015).
    The second factor—Oklahoma’s interest in adjudicating the dispute—is a
    closer question. Oklahoma undoubtedly has an interest in providing residents
    with a convenient forum for redressing grievances. Here that interest may be
    mitigated because at least the breach of contract claim would likely be governed
    by Arkansas law. 5 See id. at *18.
    The third factor is not well addressed by the parties. Presumably Dental
    Dynamics has an interest in receiving convenient relief in Oklahoma. Dental
    Dynamics has failed, however, to put forward evidence indicating that litigating
    this action in a separate forum, such as Arkansas, would practically foreclose
    pursuit of the lawsuit. See OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 
    149 F.3d 1086
    , 1097 (10th Cir. 1998).
    5
    Under Oklahoma law, a “contract is to be interpreted according to the law
    and usage of the place where it is performed, or, if it does not indicate a place of
    performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.” Okla.
    Stat. tit. 15 § 162. With respect to performance, the bill of sale requires certain
    elements including “disassembly, packaging, and shipment” to occur in Arkansas.
    App. at 14–15. With respect to the contract’s creation, certain elements occurred
    in Oklahoma and certain elements occurred in Arkansas. Id. at 38. Dental
    Dynamics presents no argument that the breach of contract claim would be subject
    to Oklahoma, as opposed to Arkansas, law. Accordingly, without deciding the
    choice-of-law question, we find the potential application of Arkansas law
    mitigates, to some degree, Oklahoma’s otherwise present interest in providing a
    convenient forum for relief.
    -17-
    The fourth factor, the judicial system’s interests, weighs slightly in favor of
    Jolly Dental as the majority of parties, witnesses, and evidence exists outside of
    Oklahoma. See id.
    The final factor is neutral as neither party advances any fundamental social
    policies weighing in their favor.
    Taken together, these considerations weigh in Jolly Dental’s favor,
    especially considering the lesser showing required in light of Dental Dynamics’s
    inability to establish minimum contacts. See AST Sports Sci., 
    514 F.3d at 1061
    .
    It is unreasonable to require Jolly Dental to defend an action in Oklahoma where
    the central allegations concern the sale and shipment of equipment from Arkansas
    to California. This holds especially where Dental Dynamics has failed to show
    any hardship associated with pursuing this litigation in a more sensible forum.
    2. Dental Dynamics’s Discovery Request
    Dental Dynamics contends, in the alternative, that even if the present
    evidence is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, it should have been
    permitted to supplement the record with limited discovery in lieu of having its
    claims dismissed. We see no merit in this argument.
    District courts are endowed with broad discretion over discovery, including
    whether to grant discovery requests with respect to jurisdictional issues. See
    Budde v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 
    511 F.2d 1033
    , 1035 (10th Cir. 1975).
    -18-
    Denials of discovery requests are accordingly reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    See 
    id.
     A district court abuses its discretion in denying a jurisdictional discovery
    request where the denial prejudices the party seeking discovery. Dutcher v.
    Matheson, 
    840 F.3d 1183
    , 1195 (10th Cir. 2016); Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of
    Standards & Tech., 
    282 F.3d 1320
    , 1326 (10th Cir. 2002). Prejudice exists where
    “pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted . . . or
    where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Sizova, 
    282 F.3d at 1326
     (quoting Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 
    556 F.2d 406
    , 430
    n.24 (9th Cir. 1977)). The party seeking discovery bears the burden of showing
    prejudice. See Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino and
    Resort, 
    629 F.3d 1173
    , 1189 n.11 (10th Cir. 2010).
    Dental Dynamics fails to carry its burden with respect to showing
    prejudice. Dental Dynamics points to no relevant facts in dispute. Instead,
    Dental Dynamics seeks additional discovery based only on speculation that
    “[l]imited discovery on . . . [Jolly Dental’s] business relationship would likely aid
    Dental Dynamics in establishing personal jurisdiction.” Aplt. Br. at 23. As we
    and others have held, pure speculation as to the existence of helpful facts is
    insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute the type of prejudice that warrants
    reversing the district court in the area of discovery management. See
    Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., 
    629 F.3d at
    1189–90 (citing with approval Boschetto v.
    -19-
    Hansing, 
    539 F.3d 1011
    , 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding the district court’s denial
    of a request for jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion where the
    request was based on “little more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally
    relevant facts”)); Dutcher v. Matheson, 840 F.3d at 1195; Leema Enters., Inc. v.
    Willi, 
    575 F. Supp. 1533
    , 1536 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (denying jurisdictional discovery
    based on “mere speculation” that jurisdictionally relevant facts existed).
    Accordingly, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion by
    denying Dental Dynamics’s request for additional discovery.
    III. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
    -20-