Marani v. Cramer

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 KEVEN MARANI, CASE No. 19-cv-05538-YGR 6 Plaintiff, 7 Vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 47 8 MICHAEL CRAMER, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Defendants Mark, Florence, and Scott Cramer (“Cramer Defendants”) filed a motion to 12 || dismiss plaintiff Keven Marani’s complaint on April 2, 2021. (Dkt. No. 47.) The motion was 13 || heard by the Court on July 6, 2021 by videoconference. 14 Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for 3 15 the reasons set forth in full detail on the record, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE 16 || TOAMEND. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing that this Court has 3 17 || personal jurisdiction over the Cramer Defendants. For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction 18 over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have “minimum contacts with [the forum state] 19 || such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial 20 || justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks and 21 || citation omitted). Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by July 27, 2021. The Cramer 22 || Defendants shall respond by August 17, 2021. 23 This Order terminates Docket Number 47. 24 IT Is SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: opens Pa astg— YVONNE GONZALEZ-ROGERS NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 28