GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 1, 2024·No. 4:22-cv-07628·Unknown

Opinion

3 4 5 GS HOLISTIC, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-07628-NC Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 6 PERSONAL JURISDICTION 7 v. OVER MULHAM ALHAMDANI XOTIC SMOKES INC, et al., Re: ECF 48 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff GS Holistic moves for default judgment against defendants Xotic Smokes, 11 |) Murad, Mulham, and Hashem Alhamdani, and Entesar Dargan. ECF 48. This Court does 12 || not find it has personal jurisdiction over Mulham Alhamdani and orders GS to show cause 13 |} why Mulham should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. 14 GS consistently served Mulham Alhamdani in Ohio. See ECF 19, 37, 49. GS does 15 |} not explain Mulham’s Ohio address in its complaint or motion for default judgment. See 16 || ECF 1,48. This Court finds GS’s contention that Mulham is domiciled in California and 5 17 || thus this Court has general personal jurisdiction over him suspect: Mulham was the only 5 18 || defendant not served at a California address. See, e.g., ECF 49. And GS has not 19 |} demonstrated Mulham is otherwise subject to specific personal jurisdiction. See 20 || Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (outlining 21 || three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction). 22 GS must show cause why this Court should not recommend dismissal of Mulham 23 || Alhamdani for lack of personal jurisdiction. GS must reply in writing by March 15, 2024. 24 || If GS fails to reply, this Court will recommend dismissing Mulham for lack of personal 25 || jurisdiction. 27 || Dated: March 1, 2024 fhe NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 28 United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc (GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)