IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

KEELY KLINGER et al., Plaintiffs, No. 3:23-cv-00426-MO V. OPINION AND ORDER FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., Plaintiffs bring this action against several Defendants. Defendant Federal Express Corporation moved to dismiss, [ECF 5], asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). It argued that there is no general jurisdiction because it is neither incorporated nor has a principal place of business in Oregon. See Daimler AG v. Bauman,

(2014). And it argued that there is no specific jurisdiction because it had no involvement in the incidents that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ complaint. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cnty.,

(2017). Plaintiffs responded, [ECF 14], stating they did not object to dismissal. In light of Defendant’s arguments and Plaintiffs’ non-objection, I agree with Defendant, GRANT the motion, and DISMISS Federal Express Corporation. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this GE ares 2023.

MICHAEL W. ‘ Gis Senior United States District Judge 1 — OPINION AND ORDER