Civil Procedure
≪STUDENT/FIRM NAME≫ LLP
STUDENTNAME, CA SB, # 056311
Location of Firm
Telephone
Attorneys for Defendant
DEREK CAR REPAIR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Action No.
PAUL PETERSON…….. Plaintiff.
Danfield’s Auto Expresss……1st Defendant, and
Derek’s Car Repair…………..2nd Defendant
2ND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISIDCTION.
COME NOW 2nd defendant Derek’s Car Repair, a citizen of Nevada, with a Motion to Dismiss the action instituted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(2), in lieu of the following due standards applicable in challenging personal jurisdiction;
- Insufficiency of the threshold of minimum contacts between the controversy, the defendant and the forum
- An apparent deficit in reasonableness.
The preceding arguments are further explored in the attached memorandum of law, coupled with the relevant authorities.
The defendant therefore humbly prays for the court to dismiss the motion.
DATED: June, 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
≪Student/Firm Name≫ LLP
By……………………………………………..
≪Student Name≫
Attomeys for Defendant
DEREK CAR REPAIR.
≪STUDENT/FIRM NAME≫ LLP
STUDENTNAME, CA SB, # 056311
Location of Firm
Telephone
Attorneys for Defendant
DEREK CAR REPAIR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Civil Action No.
PAUL PETERSON…….. Plaintiff.
V.
Dan fields Auto Express,……1st Defendant, and
Derek’s Car Repair……….2nd Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF DISMISSAL.
Introduction
This case stems from an accident near Lake City, Northern California. The plaintiff alleges that the accident arose owing to defective brakes, after attempting to park because of the overheating of his automobile. As evidenced by the documents brought forth before this court, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are situated in California, while the 2nd defendant is situated in Nevada, approximately 216 miles away.
Pertinent facts
The facts pertinent to the second defendant is that the plaintiff had solicited for his help in relation to the issues with his automobile. The 2nd defendant, taking notice that the car had only been fixed less than 24 hours before, suggested to the plaintiff that he should take the car to the first defendant to confirm its safety. On his way back, the accident occurred, resulting to injuries, hence this suit, filed in the plaintiff state of residence.
Legal authority and Arguments
The exercise of personal jurisdiction mandates that the court must be coextensive with both the long arm statute of the state in which it sits, and the constitutional requirements of due process, as evidence in the California Civil Procedure Code.
The significance of due process in sufficiency of contacts with the jurisdiction forum was highlighted by the noble court in DataDisc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 128o, 1286 (9th Cir.1977), in that it must not offend the traditional notions of fairly play and substantial justice. As set by International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945), personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. A nonresident may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum are substantial, continuous and systematic, as mandated in Perkins v. BenguetMining Co. 342 U.S. 437.
The sufficiency of minimum contacts, as required by the case, exhibits the contacts pertinent in this case are largely insufficient. Even though the cause of action need not be connected with the relationship establishing the contact with the forum state, it is evident that the contacts are neither substantial, continuous nor systematic. The plaintiff, a nonresident, happened to be a mere sojourner in the state the defendant resides in, and solicited for his help. The sufficiency of contacts is further negated in light that the firm is incorporated in Nevada, and deals solely in the location, with braches or extensions. As such, the insufficiency of contacts is herein is highly deficient.
Specific jurisdiction arises when the nature and quality of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are significant in relation to the specific cause of action. The requirements of specific jurisdiction as BurgerKing Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-473 (1985) per warrant that; “
- The nonresident defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits and protections.
- The controversy is related to or arises out of the defendants contacts with the forum.
- Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.”
The insufficiency of minimum contacts in specific jurisdiction is highlighted in the defendant did not avail himself in the said forum as evidence in the location and business functioning in Nevada, thus neither enjoyed its benefits or protections. Additionally, the contact between the defendant and the plaintiff is not sufficient enough to relate to the connection with the forum, as all the defendant did was to opine to the plaintiff that he should take the car to the first defendant to ensure it is safe.
Furthermore, the exercise of jurisdiction in this forum and the court’s jurisdiction would be unreasonable, unfair and prejudicial to the defendant, in light of the distance between the defendant’s location and the court. The court is an estimated 216 miles from the defendant’s location. Such travel expenses and expenditure, would indeed, occasion great hardships to the defendant.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the suit, as evidenced above, ought to be dismissed as the court lacks personal jurisdiction against the second defendant.
DATED: June, 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
≪Student/Firm Name≫ LLP
By……………………………………………..
Student Name
Attomeys for Defendant
DEREK CAR REPAIR.
References
DataDisc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 128o, 1286 (9th Cir.1977)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Perkins v. BenguetMining Co. 342 U.S. 437.
BurgerKing Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-473 (1985).
\\