Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dychiuchay v. Grieshaber

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 1, 2014

FRANCINE DYCHIUCHAY, Plaintiff(s),
v.
DAVID GRIESHABER, et al., Defendant(s)

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's May 1, 2014, order and judgment (doc. 25 & 26) regarding defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. # 27). Defendants filed a response (doc. # 29) and plaintiff filed a reply (doc. # 32).

Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to remand to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. # 28). Defendants filed a response (doc. # 30) and plaintiff filed a reply (doc. # 31).

Finally before the court is defendants David Grieshaber's ("Grieshaber") and Aradia Investments, Inc.'s ("Aradia") motion for sanctions pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 11 (doc. # 33). Plaintiff filed a response (doc. # 34) and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 35).[1]

I. Background

This case stems from a 1998 written contract. ( See doc. # 25). Plaintiff agreed to model for explicit photos for defendants' website. ( See doc. # 1). The parties negotiated and executed the contract in California. ( See id. ). At that time, all parties were citizens of California. ( See id. ). Plaintiff relocated to Las Vegas around 2004 and continued to perform under the agreement. Plaintiff requested the site be taken down at some point in 2013.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada on February 11, 2014. (Doc. # 25). Defendants removed this action on March 7, 2014 to federal court (doc. # 1) and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on March 12, 2014 (doc. # 4). This court held oral argument on April 21, 2014.

Defendants argued that this court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendants and must dismiss the case. Plaintiff argued that she had been a resident of Nevada for the past ten years and defendants, who market themselves world-wide, maintained contacts with her. Therefore, plaintiff asserted that defendants maintained sufficient minimum contacts in the state of Nevada for this court to have personal jurisdiction over defendants. The court found defendants did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Nevada for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 25).

Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its order and remand the action to state court. Defendants ask the court to impose sanctions on plaintiff for wasting the court's time and bringing frivolous and meritless motions.

Because this court's ability to decide on plaintiff's motion to reconsider and defendants' motion for sanctions is dependent on the court's jurisdiction over the case, the court will consider plaintiff's motion to remand to state court first.

II. Motion to remand to state court

Plaintiff asserts that defendant Aradia's primary place of business is Nevada. Therefore, because plaintiff is a Nevada resident, there is not complete diversity, and this court must remand the action to state court.

Defendants assert that defendant Aradia is a California corporation and that removal of this matter was proper under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.