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)

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