Skistimas v. Hotworx Franchising LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 GREG SKISTIMAS et al., CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05974-DGE 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 12 v. BRIEFING ON MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 22) 13 HOTWORX FRANCHISING LLC et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 On February 22, 2024, Defendants Nancy Price, Patricia Gattuso, and Stephen Smith (the 17 “Individual Defendants”) moved to dismiss this action, arguing, inter alia, that the Court lacks 18 personal jurisdiction over them. (Dkt. No. 22 at 5–10.) When a defendant moves to dismiss a 19 complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that 20 the exercise of jurisdiction is proper. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 21 800 (9th Cir. 2004). 22 Though not entirely clear, Plaintiffs’ response and amended complaint appear to rely on 23 (1) consent (Dkt. Nos. 32 at 3; 35 at 2) and (2) RCW § 19.100.160 (Dkt. No. 32 at 4) as the bases 24 1 for their argument that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Individual 2 Defendants.1 However, Plaintiffs fail to offer non-conclusory argument, legal authority, or 3 citations to specific locations in the record to support their position on any ground. As such, the 4 Court is unable to determine with certainty on which portions of the record Plaintiffs seek to rely

5 to establish consent or otherwise support their position. Further, Plaintiffs offer no argument as 6 to the applicability of RCW § 19.100.160 to the instant case. 7 Plaintiffs SHALL file supplemental briefing of no more than 12 pages identifying and 8 presenting their arguments with clarity no later than June 26, 2024. Arguments must contain 9 citation to authority and the record. The Individual Defendants SHALL file a response of no 10 more than 10 pages no later than July 5, 2024. 11 Dated this 18th day of June 2024. 12 A 13 David G. Estudillo 14 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 Plaintiffs also vaguely assert that one of the Individual Defendants “effectively submitted to the 23 jurisdiction” of Washington. (Dkt. No. 35 at 2.) The Court is unable to discern the legal basis for this assertion. 24