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
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Judge Provinzino dismissed all claims against Chinese defendant Ningbo without prejudice after plaintiffs filed no response to its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Families or plaintiffs who bring product liability claims against foreign manufacturers may be affected, particularly where serving a foreign defendant and establishing personal jurisdiction over it in a U.S. court poses challenges. This ruling also illustrates that failing to respond to a motion to dismiss — even with counsel, even after extensive time — may be treated as a concession, resulting in dismissal of claims against that defendant.
What happened
In Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., Roland and Kourtney Huber sued as trustees on behalf of their deceased minor child J.H., claiming that a massage chair manufactured by Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd. and sold by Johnson Health Tech caused J.H.'s death. Ningbo, a Chinese corporation, moved to dismiss the case against it for lack of personal jurisdiction — meaning it argued that a Minnesota court had no legal authority over it. The court gave the Hubers several extensions and allowed limited discovery specifically to help them respond to that motion.
Despite those accommodations, the Hubers never filed a response. In a joint filing with co-defendants Johnson Health Tech, the Hubers acknowledged they had conducted some jurisdictional discovery and simply chose not to respond. They nonetheless asked the court to issue a detailed ruling on the jurisdictional question, suggesting the issue had significance for product liability law. The court found that request unusual and declined to analyze the merits without any opposition from the Hubers.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino concluded that the Hubers' silence, after months of investigation and multiple extensions, amounted to a concession that Ningbo's motion was correct. Because personal jurisdiction must be tested against evidence and exhibits — not just pleadings — and the Hubers submitted nothing to contest Ningbo's evidence, the court granted Ningbo's motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims against Ningbo without prejudice. The case continues against the Johnson Health Tech defendants.
The detailed version
- Roland Huber and Kourtney Huber v. Johnson Health Tech North America · No. 0:24-cv-03489
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Mar. 23, 2026
Background
Roland and Kourtney Huber, acting as co-trustees on behalf of the heirs and next of kin of their deceased minor child J.H., filed suit against Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. and Johnson Health Tech Retail, Inc. (collectively "Johnson") and Ningbo Behealthy Electronic Technology Group Co., Ltd. ("Ningbo"). The Hubers allege that a massage chair manufactured by Ningbo and sold by Johnson caused J.H.'s death.
Ningbo is a Chinese corporation. Serving it with legal process in accordance with international law caused significant delays early in the litigation. Once served, Ningbo moved on November 26, 2025, to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction — the rule that allows a defendant to argue a court lacks legal authority over it.
Procedural History
Ningbo agreed to multiple extensions of the Hubers' deadline to respond to the motion. The parties also conducted limited jurisdictional discovery — a narrow fact-finding process focused specifically on whether the court could exercise jurisdiction over Ningbo. On February 9, 2026, the court granted the Hubers until February 17, 2026, to respond. That deadline passed without any response.
On March 3, 2026, the Hubers and Johnson filed a joint motion to extend all scheduling deadlines by six months. United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty granted that motion on March 4, 2026. In the filing accompanying that motion, the Hubers acknowledged that after conducting some 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.
Court's Analysis
Concession by Non-Response
Judge Provinzino characterized the Hubers' failure to respond — after months of investigation, multiple extensions, and jurisdictional discovery — as an affirmative concession on the merits of Ningbo's motion. The court distinguished this situation from cases in which courts sometimes analyze unanswered motions to dismiss because a plaintiff has entirely abandoned litigation (as sometimes occurs with self-represented, or "pro se," parties). Here, the Hubers are represented by counsel, actively litigating against Johnson, and consciously chose not to oppose Ningbo's motion after considering it. The court cited American Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett, 655 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (D. Minn. 2009), for the proposition that offering "no argument, no evidence — nothing" while continuing to litigate leads to an "inescapable conclusion" of concession.
Why the Court Declined to Rule on the Merits Anyway
The court identified two reasons not to engage with Ningbo's personal jurisdiction arguments without a response from the Hubers.
First, personal jurisdiction must be evaluated based on affidavits and exhibits, not pleadings alone. See Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004). Because the Hubers submitted no exhibits, the court was left with only Ningbo's uncontroverted evidence, which it had no permissible basis to independently challenge or question on the Hubers' behalf. In a footnote, the court observed that Ningbo's evidence appeared to support its motion: Ningbo represented it is a Chinese corporation that never conducted business in Minnesota and had no direct contact with Minnesota or the Hubers in connection with the massage chair purchase.
Second, the Hubers themselves described the jurisdictional question as significant to product liability law — which, the court reasoned, was all the more reason to require full adversarial briefing before issuing a detailed opinion. The court cited recent authority from the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasizing the importance of adversarial briefing to sound judicial decision-making.
Disposition
Judge Provinzino granted Ningbo's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and dismissed all claims against Ningbo without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the claims against Ningbo are terminated in this case but could potentially be refiled in an appropriate forum. The case against the Johnson Health Tech defendants remains pending.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.