Daramola v. Oracle America, Inc.
Filing
74
SECOND ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/2/2021. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2021)
Case 3:19-cv-07910-JD Document 74 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TAYO E DARAMOLA,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 19-cv-07910-JD
SECOND ORDER RE MOTION TO
DISMISS
v.
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 68
Defendants.
12
13
The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the Court incorporates the
14
jurisdiction standards discussed in the first dismissal order, Dkt. No. 66. The renewed motion to
15
dismiss defendants Patnaik, Gauvin, Bork, and Riseberg for lack of personal jurisdiction, Dkt.
16
No. 68, is granted without prejudice.
17
Plaintiff Daramola has not plausibly demonstrated that his claims arise out of conduct by
18
these individuals in this District. At all pertinent times, Daramola resided and worked in Canada,
19
each of the individuals resided and worked outside of California, and the key events involved
20
customer accounts located outside of California. Daramola has not shown that his alleged injuries
21
arose in any way out of the individuals’ conduct in California. On these undisputed facts, specific
22
personal jurisdiction cannot be exercised over Patnaik, Gauvin, Bork and Riseberg. See Dkt. No.
23
66 at 3-4 (and cases cited therein).
24
Daramola has not presented any facts to disturb the Court’s conclusion that these
25
individuals lack sufficiently pervasive contacts with California for general jurisdiction. Daramola
26
is not a party to the agreements between the individuals and Oracle, which relate to their terms of
27
employment and are entirely irrelevant to his claims. Any consent in those unrelated agreements
28
to jurisdiction in California does not create consent to jurisdiction vis-à-vis Daramola. See Dow
Case 3:19-cv-07910-JD Document 74 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 2
1
Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827, 835 (9th Cir. 2005). The individuals’ use of Oracle servers
2
and online resources in California incidental to their jobs is not enough to demonstrate a degree of
3
“continuous and systematic” contacts with California that “approximate physical presence,” which
4
general jurisdiction demands. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th
5
Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs.,
6
Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1225 (9th Cir. 2011); Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 622 (9th Cir.
7
1991).
8
9
The dismissal of the individuals is without prejudice, and Daramola may seek leave to
amend the complaint to add them as defendants if warranted by further discovery. Daramola is
advised that his opposition brief exceeded the page limits in the Court’s standing order. The Court
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
accepted the oversize brief on this one occasion, but will summarily strike non-conforming filings
12
going forward, with attendant consequences.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2021
15
16
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?