Verbick v. The Movement Technology Company, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER (1) Taking Matter Under Submission Without Oral Argument; (2) Granting Defendant The Movement Company, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice; And (3) For Plaintiff To Show Cause Why Defendants Predictuv Technologies, Inc. And Predictuv LLC Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant To Civil Local Rules 41.1(a) And 55.1 (ECF No. 65 ). Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 5/10/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(fth)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

TODD E. VERBICK, an individual,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) TAKING MATTER
UNDER SUBMISSION WITHOUT
ORAL ARGUMENT;
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT THE
MOVEMENT COMPANY, INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
PREJUDICE; AND
(3) FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
PREDICTUV TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. AND PREDICTUV LLC
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL
RULES 41.1(a) AND 55.1

v.
THE MOVEMENT TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY, INC., a Washington
corporation; PREDICTUV
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; PREDICTUV LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company;
KELVIN HILL, an individual; ZSOLT
CSENDE, an individual; VIVIEN
SZAKACS, an individual;
CHRISTOPHER KEIL, an individual;
NIALL LAWLOR, an individual;
GERRY LAWLOR, an individual; ROB
GRINNELL, an individual; and DOES 1
to 100,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(ECF No. 65)

Defendants.

25
26

Presently before the Court is Defendant The Movement Technology Company,

27

Inc.’s (“TMC”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Todd E. Verbick’s Second Amended

28

Complaint. (“Mot.,” ECF No. 65.) The Court takes this matter under submission without
1
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).1 Having carefully considered the

2

parties’ arguments, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” ECF No. 63), and the

3

relevant law, the Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion. The Court

4

also ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed as

5

to Defendants Predictuv Technologies, Inc. and Predictuv LLC pursuant to Civil Local

6

Rules 41.1(a) and 55.1.

7

BACKGROUND

8

The Court incorporates the factual and procedural background from the Court’s

9

November 19, 2021, Order (1) Granting Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, and

10

(2) Dismissing Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 62

11

at 2–4.)

12

LEGAL STANDARD

13

“A Court’s power to exercise jurisdiction over a party is limited by both statutory

14

and constitutional considerations.” In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., 338 F.

15

Supp. 3d 1118, 1135 (S.D. Cal. 2018). Constitutionally, “[t]he Due Process Clause of the

16

Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State’s authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a

17

judgment of its courts.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (citing World-Wide

18

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980)). Statutorily, “California’s long-

19

arm statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under

20

the U.S. Constitution.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); see also Cal.

21

Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.

22

The Supreme Court has recognized “two types of personal jurisdiction: ‘general’

23

(sometimes called ‘all-purpose’) jurisdiction and ‘specific’ (sometimes called ‘case-

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff contends that he was “forced to wait almost a year from the time of [Defendants’ April 2020]
jurisdictional challenge to Plaintiff’s original Complaint for a ruling[,]” which was issued on March 25,
2021. (See ECF No. 66 (“Opp’n”) at 2; see also id. at 7.) Plaintiff, however, fails to take into
consideration that this case—along with over 200 others—was not transferred to the undersigned until
October 6, 2020. (See ECF No. 41.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s lack of compliance with this
District’s Civil Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases has delayed the Court’s
ability to rule on the instant Motion.
2
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

linked’) jurisdiction.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct.

2

1773, 1780 (2017) (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.

3

915, 919 (2011)). “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general

4

jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile; for a corporation, it is an equivalent place, one in

5

which the corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S.

6

at 924). “A court with general jurisdiction may hear any claim against that defendant, even

7

if all the incidents underlying the claim occurred in a different State.” Id. (emphasis in

8

original) (citing Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919).

9

For a court to exercise specific jurisdiction, by contrast, “‘the suit’ must ‘aris[e] out

10

of or relat[e] to the defendant's contacts with the forum.’” Id. (alterations and emphasis in

11

original) (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at 127 (2014)) (citing Burger King Corp. v.

12

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–473 (1985); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v.

13

Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). “In other words, there must be ‘an affiliation between the

14

forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes

15

place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s regulation.’” Id. (alteration

16

in original) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). “For this reason, ‘specific jurisdiction is

17

confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy

18

that establishes jurisdiction.’” Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919).

19

ANALYSIS

20

TMC moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for lack of personal

21

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). (See Mot. at 1.) Alternatively, TMC requests

22

transfer of this action to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the provisions in

23

the disputed contract and 28 U.S.C. sections 1406 and 1631. (See id.) Plaintiff opposes

24

both requests, asserting that TMC is subject to personal jurisdiction due to it “actively

25

selling convertible securities and seeking high level investors to purchase TMC in

26

California.” (See Opp’n at 5.)

27

///

28

///
3
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

I.

Personal Jurisdiction

2

For the reasons discussed previously, (see ECF Nos. 48, 62), Plaintiff again fails to

3

establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant TMC. The redline of the Second Amended

4

Complaint, as compared to the First Amended Complaint, indicates that most of Plaintiff’s

5

“amendments” were decapitalizing Defendants’ names. (Compare ECF No. 70 (redline of

6

SAC), with ECF No. 49 (FAC).)

7

jurisdictional analysis is Plaintiff’s allegation he was also in attendance at the 2017 San

8

Diego meeting with Dean Graziano. (See SAC ¶ 24.) This fact, however, does not impact

9

the Court’s analysis.

The only substantive addition that touches the

10

The Court previously found that the nexus between the San Diego meeting and

11

Plaintiff’s purchase of the convertible security was “too attenuated to find that the

12

underlying alleged harm in the instant case arose from TMC’s actions at the initial

13

meeting.” (See ECF No. 62 at 9.) The Court noted in a footnote that the Plaintiff’s absence

14

from the meeting simply “further demonstrat[ed] the attenuation,” (id. (emphasis added)),

15

i.e., it was not the sole, or even main, factor in the Court’s finding that jurisdiction does

16

not exist. Thus, the Court again DISMISSES, this time WITH PREJUDICE, Plaintiff’s

17

Second Amended Complaint against Defendant TMC for lack of personal jurisdiction.

18

II.

Transfer of Venue

19

Defendant TMC contends that the Western District of Washington “has personal

20

jurisdiction over TMC and would be a more appropriate venue for the action.” (Mot. at 8.)

21

Plaintiff opposes the transfer, but states that if “any relief is warranted it is only an order

22

transferring the venue of the case.” (See Opp’n at 3–4.) In light of its dismissal of this

23

action as to Defendant TMC, see supra Section I, the Court DENIES AS MOOT TMC’s

24

alternative request for transfer of venue to the Western District of Washington.

25

III.

Breach of Contract

26

Although the Court has dismissed Defendant TMC, which does not seek to dismiss

27

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the Court briefly addresses the claim solely to correct

28

an error in Plaintiff’s Opposition. Plaintiff claims that the Court found in its prior dismissal
4
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

order, (see ECF No. 62), that “Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract cause of action could only be

2

maintained against TMC because it is the only party to the Convertible Security

3

Agreement.” (See Opp’n at 8.) Further, Plaintiff contends that the Court found the breach

4

of contract cause of action against TMC to be viable. (See id. at 3.)

5

The Court, however, made no such findings. TMC did not move to dismiss the

6

breach of contract claim. (See ECF No. 52 at 7.) Instead, Defendants asserted only that

7

the “Individual Defendants Should be Dismissed From the First Cause of Action for Breach

8

of Contract.” (Id.) Because the issue was never briefed, and thus never ruled upon, it is

9

inappropriate for Plaintiff to interpret the lack of dismissal against TMC as any affirmative

10

finding by the Court.

11

IV.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

12

Defendant TMC requests that, should the Court grant the instant Motion, the Court

13

“entertain a separate attorneys’ fees and costs motion pursuant to the terms of the contract,

14

namely Paragraph 5(d) of the Convertible Security Agreements.” (See Mot. at 8.) This

15

language indicates that Defendant TMC plans to file an independent motion pursuant to

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).2 Therefore, the Court RESERVES ruling on the

17

fee issue until the requisite motion is filed.

18

///

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), regarding attorneys’ fees, states in relevant part:

2

(A)
Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney’s fees and related nontaxable expenses
must be made by motion . . . .
(B)
Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order provides
otherwise, the motion must:
(i)

be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment;

(ii)
specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the
movant to the award;
(iii)

state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; and

(iv)
disclose, if the court so orders, the terms of any agreement about fees for
the services for which the claim is made.
5
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 55.1 states: “If plaintiff(s) fail(s) to

3

move for default judgment within thirty (30) days of the entry of a default, the Clerk will

4

prepare, with notice, an order to show cause why the complaint against the defaulted party

5

should not be dismissed.” Further, “[a]ctions or proceedings [that] have been pending in

6

this court for more than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken

7

therein during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the Court for want of

8

prosecution.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 41.1(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails

9

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss

10

the action or any claim against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)

11

(“[A] District Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without

12

affording notice of its intention to do so or providing an adversary hearing before acting.”).

13

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed requests for entry of clerk default against

14

Predictuv Technologies, Inc. and Predictuv LLC, (see ECF Nos. 55, 56), and the Clerk of

15

the Court entered default against both parties on September 8, 2021. (See ECF No. 57.)

16

Although Plaintiff states that he “intends to pursue default judgment against both parties,”

17

(see Opp’n at 3), Plaintiff has taken no action—including moving for default judgment—

18

against Defendants Predictuv Technologies, Inc. and Predictuv LLC for over six months.

19

(See generally Docket.) Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE

20

within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order is docketed why the Complaint against

21

Predictuv Technologies, Inc. and Predictuv LLC should not be dismissed pursuant to Civil

22

Local Rules 41.1(a) and 55.1. 

23

CONCLUSION

24

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant TMC’s Motion and

25

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint as to

26

Defendant TMC for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS

27

MOOT Defendant’s alternative request to transfer venue. Finally, the Court ORDERS

28

Plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this
6
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)

1

Order why Defendants Predictuv Technologies, Inc. and Predictuv LLC should not be

2

dismissed pursuant to Civil Local Rules 41.1(a) and 55.1.

3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2022

~,~12,,~
Honorable Todd W. Robinson
United Shiites District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
20-CV-611 TWR (DEB)