Sandra Levy v. Shay Priove, et al

Filing 7

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/20/2016. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 16-7218 FMO (AJWx) Title Sandra Levy v. Shay Priove, et al. Present: The Honorable Date October 13, 2016 Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Personal Jurisdiction and Venue On September 26, 2016, plaintiff Sandra Levy (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendants Shay Priove and Eliran Damri (“defendants”) alleging state-law claims, (see Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 18-39), including a claim under Florida law. (See id. at ¶¶ 37-39). Plaintiff alleges that the court has diversity jurisdiction because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (See id. at ¶ 11). More specifically, plaintiff alleges she resides in California (see id. at ¶ 1) and that defendants reside in Florida. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 11). Moreover, she alleges that none of the defendants “are citizens or residents of the State of California at any time herein relevant and material.” (Id. at ¶ 4). Plaintiff makes no allegations regarding venue. (See, generally, id.). A defendant may be subject to either general or specific personal jurisdiction. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 754 (2014). General jurisdiction applies when a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are “so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home” there. Id. at 761 (quotation and alteration marks omitted). Specific jurisdiction applies when the cause of action “is related to or ‘arises out of’ a defendant’s contacts with the forum” state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Specific jurisdiction does not apply unless a defendant commits an act by which it “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The defendant must have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state “such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 & 297 (1980). The court’s analysis “looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014). “[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Id. Plaintiff makes no allegations suggesting the court has personal jurisdiction over defendants. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Complaint). Nor does plaintiff allege any facts showing that the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in this District. (See, generally, id.). CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 16-7218 FMO (AJWx) Title Date Sandra Levy v. Shay Priove, et al. October 13, 2016 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that no later than October 20, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or transferred for lack of proper venue. Failure to respond to this order to show cause by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to either: (1) the dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or failure to comply with a court order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962); or (2) transfer of the instant action to the appropriate venue. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL vdr Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?