Browalski v. Sullivan

Filing 37

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 19 Motion to Dismiss. Show Cause Response due by 9/28/2015. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/21/2015. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SARA ELAINE BROWALSKI,

Case No. 14-cv-03181-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
TRANSFER

9
10

JEREMY MICHAEL SULLIVAN,

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Defendant Jeremy Michael Sullivan, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to dismiss this

14

case for lack of personal jurisdiction and being improperly before this Court. Dkt. No. 19. On

15

June 15, 2015, after spending considerable time considering the jurisdiction issue, the Court

16

ordered Sullivan to produce and file certain business records by July 15, 2015. Dkt. No. 33.

17

Plaintiff Browalski was also ordered to produce and file certain documents, and provide a

18

supplemental declaration, by July 15, 2015. Id.

19

Although the complaint and other documents submitted by the parties are not crystal clear

20

on the jurisdiction question, Browalski’s complaint fails to show that a substantial part of the

21

events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred in the Northern District of California.

22

Instead, her claims relate to events that took place almost entirely outside of California. The

23

filming and production of the disputed works all occurred in either Louisiana or Nevada. Dkt. No.

24

1 ¶ 2. When the disputed films were created, Browalski and Sullivan were living in either

25

Louisiana or Nevada, but not in California. Id. The two executed a divorce decree in Nevada and

26

Browalski alleges that Sullivan coerced her into signing blank model releases in Nevada. Id. ¶¶

27

22-23; Dkt. No. 35, Ex. A. Browalski alleges that Sullivan is now breaching an oral agreement

28

allowing him to use the clips on a short-term basis -- an agreement also made in Nevada. Dkt. No.

1

1 ¶ 26. Any contract between Browalski and Sullivan governing the films was negotiated and

2

executed in Nevada, and all other affirmative conduct giving rise to this suit primarily took place

3

there or in Louisiana.

4

Sullivan has submitted largely uncontroverted declaration statements about his lack of

5

connection to California generally and this District specifically. Among other facts, Sullivan

6

states that he currently lives in Michigan and has never been a resident or citizen of California.

7

Dkt. No. 19. Sullivan provides the disputed film content to a third-party website that makes it

8

available for purchase on a website accessible nationally. Id. Nothing in the record indicates that

9

the website purposefully directs activities to this District or is in any way connected to it. The
Court has no information about where Sullivan is located when he uploads the disputed film clips.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In light of these facts, the Court is skeptical that personal jurisdiction exists over Sullivan.

12

But rather than reach a final determination on jurisdiction, the Court believes it could be more

13

efficient and productive for the parties to transfer this case to a federal district court in Michigan,

14

where Sullivan lives. To that end, the parties are ordered to show why this case should not be

15

transferred by September 28, 2015. Sullivan is also ordered to identify where he lives so that the

16

Court can determine the proper district for transfer.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 21, 2015

19
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2