Marani v. Cramer

Opinion

1 2 5 KEVEN MARANI, CASE No. 19-cv-05538-YGR 6 Plaintiff, 7 Vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 47 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