Tucker v. Harcros Chemicals Inc. et al (Case consolidated for discovery; all non-dispositive filings to be made in the lead case - 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VANESSA TUCKER, individually and on behalf )
of those similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
v. )
) No. 25-2569-KHV
HARCROS CHEMICALS INC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Elementis PLC’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Alternative Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and Joinder in Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
#40) filed January 9, 2026. Defendant argues that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this
Court, and makes an alternative argument that under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Kansas
statute of repose requires dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.
When defendants seek dismissal under 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) in the alternative, the Court
must first decide the jurisdictional challenge because the latter challenge would be moot if the
Court lacks jurisdiction over defendant. See Creamer v. Gildemeister, No. 15-4871-KHV, 2015
WL 6828186, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2015). Defendant argues that it is not subject to general or
specific jurisdiction in Kansas and that the complaint fails to allege continuous or systematic or
even minimum contacts such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice. In response, plaintiff does not claim that the complaint
currently alleges facts which would justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
defendant. She contends that jurisdictional discovery is required to “resolve the disputed facts”
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 52 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
regarding personal jurisdiction over the “Elementis Entities.” She has not identified a single
jurisdictional fact which is disputed, however, or explained what discovery is necessary. The
Court declines to subject defendant to jurisdictional discovery which, clearly, is nothing but a
fishing expedition.
On this record, defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court and plaintiff’s
complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2). In this regard, the Court substantially agrees
with the authorities and arguments set forth on pages 1 through 13 of Defendant Elementis PLC’s
Legal Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Under
Rule 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Alternative Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and
Joinder in Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #41) filed January 9, 2026, and
pages 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Defendants Elementis Chemical Inc’s and Elementis PLC’s Joint Reply
Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #47)
filed March 5, 2026.
Because plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction and identifies no
factual issues, defendant’s motion must be granted under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Eighteen Seventy, LP v. Jayson, 32 F.4th 956, 964 (10th Cir. 2022) (citing OMI
Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Can., 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998)). As a result, the
Court need not address defendant’s alternative motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The law is well settled, and due to the press of other court business, the Court renders this
truncated ruling to advance the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of this action under
Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Elementis PLC’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(2) for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Alternative Rule
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 52 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, and Joinder In Elementis Chemicals Inc’s Motion To Dismiss (Doc.
#40) filed January 9, 2026 is SUSTAINED.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02569-KHV-ADM Document 52 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3