Roland Huber and Kourtney Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America
Roland Huber and Kourtney Huber, as Co-Trustees for the Heirs and Next of Kin of J.H., a minor decedent v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc.; Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc., d/b/a Johnson Fitness and Wellness; and, Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03489
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., Judge Provinzino dismissed all claims against Chinese manufacturer Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd. without prejudice after the plaintiffs — who had conducted jurisdictional discovery — chose not to file any response to Ningbo's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the court interpreted as a concession.
Families or plaintiffs in product liability cases involving foreign manufacturers, particularly those considering whether to respond to personal jurisdiction challenges; practitioners navigating service of process on foreign corporations and jurisdictional discovery in federal court.
What happened
In Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., Roland and Kourtney Huber sued on behalf of their deceased minor child J.H., claiming that a massage chair made by Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd. ('Ningbo'), a Chinese corporation, and sold by Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. and Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc. caused J.H.'s death. Ningbo moved to dismiss the case against it, arguing the court had no authority (called 'personal jurisdiction') over a foreign company with no meaningful ties to Minnesota. The Hubers were given multiple deadline extensions and were even allowed to conduct limited pre-ruling discovery specifically to help them decide how to respond to that motion.
Despite all that time and opportunity, the Hubers never filed a response to Ningbo's motion. They later explained to the court that after doing some investigation, they simply did not submit a response — while also asking the court to rule on the motion because of what they called its broader significance to product liability law. The court noted this was an unusual request: typically, a court only analyzes an unanswered dismissal motion on the merits when a plaintiff has completely abandoned the litigation (often seen in cases where someone represents themselves). Here, the Hubers were still actively litigating the case against the other defendants, so their silence on Ningbo's motion read as a deliberate choice, not abandonment.
Judge Provinzino concluded that the Hubers' failure to submit any argument or evidence in response — after months of investigation — amounted to a concession that Ningbo's motion was correct. The court also noted that Ningbo's own uncontested evidence suggested it had no direct contacts with Minnesota, which would independently support dismissal. Because there was no opposing brief to work with, and because the Hubers themselves acknowledged the issue was legally significant (which requires careful, two-sided argument), Judge Provinzino declined to issue a detailed legal analysis and instead granted Ningbo's motion, dismissing all claims against Ningbo without prejudice, meaning the Hubers are not permanently barred from refiling those claims.
The detailed version
Case
Roland Huber and Kourtney Huber, as Co-Trustees for the Heirs and Next of Kin of J.H., a minor decedent v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc.; Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc., d/b/a Johnson Fitness and Wellness; and Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd., No. 24-cv-3489 (LMP/JFD), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Judge
Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge.
Date
March 23, 2026.
Background
Plaintiffs Roland and Kourtney Huber (the 'Hubers') brought suit as co-trustees on behalf of their deceased minor child J.H., alleging that a massage chair manufactured by Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd. ('Ningbo'), a Chinese corporation, and sold by Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. and Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc. (collectively 'Johnson') caused J.H.'s death. Serving Ningbo required compliance with international law governing service on foreign corporations, which caused significant early delays.
Procedural History
Ningbo was eventually served and, on November 26, 2025, filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) — the rule allowing dismissal when a court lacks personal jurisdiction (i.e., legal authority over a defendant based on its ties to the forum state). Ningbo agreed to multiple deadline extensions. The parties engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery — pre-ruling investigation specifically aimed at the jurisdiction question — to assist the Hubers in formulating a response. On February 9, 2026, the court granted the Hubers until February 17, 2026, to respond. That deadline passed with no response filed.
On March 3, 2026, the Hubers and Johnson jointly moved to extend the scheduling order by six months, which Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty granted on March 4, 2026. In that joint motion, the Hubers represented that after conducting jurisdictional discovery, they chose not to file a response to Ningbo's motion to dismiss. They nonetheless asked the court to rule on the motion, citing its significance to product liability law.
Analysis
Judge Provinzino addressed two interrelated questions: (1) whether to treat the Hubers' silence as a concession, and (2) whether to analyze the motion's merits anyway.
On the first question, the court distinguished between a plaintiff who has abandoned litigation entirely (sometimes warranting a merits-based review of an unanswered motion, particularly in pro se — self-represented — cases) and the situation here, where the Hubers had actively litigated, conducted discovery, and made a deliberate choice not to respond. Citing American Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett, 655 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (D. Minn. 2009), the court concluded that offering 'no argument, no evidence — nothing' while continuing to litigate leads to the 'inescapable conclusion' of affirmative concession.
On the second question — whether to analyze the merits anyway — the court declined to do so on two grounds. First, personal jurisdiction must be evaluated based on affidavits and exhibits, not pleadings alone (citing Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004)). Because the Hubers submitted nothing, the court was left with only Ningbo's uncontroverted evidence, and saw no permissible basis to independently challenge it. Second, the Hubers themselves flagged the issue as legally significant in the context of product liability, which further counseled against issuing a detailed ruling without the benefit of adversarial briefing — the competing arguments courts depend on to carefully resolve difficult legal questions (citing Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 273 (2025); Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S. 46, 72 (2025) (Thomas, J., concurring)).
In a footnote, the court also observed that Ningbo's uncontested evidence appeared to independently support dismissal: Ningbo represented it is a Chinese corporation that has never conducted business in Minnesota and had no direct contact with Minnesota or the Hubers in connection with the massage chair purchase. The court cited Epps v. Stewart Info. Services Corp., 327 F.3d 642, 650 (8th Cir. 2003), and Witt v. TFS Surgical (US), Inc., No. 16-cv-1042, 2017 WL 3267734, at *6 (D. Minn. July 12, 2017), for the proposition that placing a product into the stream of commerce, without more, does not establish personal jurisdiction.
Ruling
Judge Provinzino granted Ningbo's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 31) and dismissed all claims against Ningbo without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means the Hubers are not permanently barred from reasserting claims against Ningbo, though practical and legal obstacles (including jurisdictional ones) may exist. The case continues against the Johnson defendants.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.