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