Marani v. Cramer

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.

11 Defendants Mark, Florence, and Scott Cramer (“Cramer Defendants”) filed a motion to || dismiss plaintiff Keven Marani’s complaint on April 2, 2021. (Dkt. No. 47.) The motion was || heard by the Court on July 6, 2021 by videoconference.

14 Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for 15 the reasons set forth in full detail on the record, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE || TOAMEND. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing that this Court has 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] || such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial || justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks and || citation omitted). Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by July 27, 2021. The Cramer || Defendants shall respond by August 17, 2021.

23 This Order terminates Docket Number 47.

24 IT Is SO ORDERED.

26 || Dated: opens Pa astg— YVONNE GONZALEZ-ROGERS NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE