of developing jurisdictional facts when the trial court’s jurisdiction has been challenged. See W.Va.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (permitting, in general, “discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, ... [and related] to the claim or defense of any other party” (emphasis added)); W.Va.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (identifying “lack of jurisdiction over the person” as a defense which may be raised by motion (emphasis added)); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n. 13, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2389 n. 13, 57 L.Ed.2d 253, 265 n. 13 (1978) (observing that “where issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue, discovery is available to ascertain the facts bearing on such issues”); Renner v. Lanard Toys Ltd., 33 F.3d 277, 283 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Edmond v. United States Postal Serv. Gen.
holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that immediate right to appeal lies from denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act recognizing that numerous cases have sustained the right of plaintiffs to conduct discovery before the district court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction citations omitted