United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. Dawson, United States District Judge
the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#8).
Plaintiff, Stanton Campbell Griffin, responded (#15), to
which Defendants replied (#23). I. Background
Plaintiff, Stanton Campbell Griffin, received a parking
ticket in Lake Elsinore, California in March 2014. Griffin
unsuccessfully challenged the parking ticket in California
municipal courts through numerous appeals. Griffin alleges
that no signs were posted indicating that parking was not
permitted at the time he was ticketed. Having been denied
what he considered justice on his parking ticket complaint,
Griffin has filed this case alleging numerous violations of
his constitutional rights by those involved in his parking
defendants are California residents or entities. The City of
Lake Elsinore (“City”), is a municipality in
Riverside County, California. Fred Lopez is a City employee
and issued the ticket. John Van Doren is a hearing officer
for the City. The Citation Processing Center is in Newport
Beach, California. Diana Giron is a Deputy City Clerk. Leah
Park is a City employee. Robert Rancourt, Elaine Kiefer, and
Albert Wokcik are judges in Riverside County. Senator Pamela
D. Harris represents California in Congress. Mr.
Beardsley's position and role as a defendant are unclear.
filed his Complaint (#1) in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada on March 14, 2017. Defendants have
now moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377(1994).
Before the merits of the case may be considered, the Court
must determine if it has jurisdiction and if the suit has
been filed in the proper venue.
Fourteenth Amendment limits the personal jurisdiction of
state courts. See, e.g., World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980);
International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of
Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310,
316-317 (1945); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733
(1878). Federal courts follow state law in determining the
bounds of their personal jurisdiction. Walden v.
Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014) (quoting Daimler
AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753 (2014). Nevada's
long arm statute extends to the limits of the
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment limits. See
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.065.
bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction,
either general or specific. Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).
General jurisdiction applies when a party's relationship
with the forum is systematic and continuous, and the party is
essentially “at home” in the state. Id.;
see also International Shoe, 326 U.S., at 317.
Specific personal jurisdiction depends on an affiliation
between the forum and the parties that relates to the
underlying controversy. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).
a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the
plaintiff has the burden to establish jurisdiction.”
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 692 (9th
Cir. 2001). To establish personal jurisdiction over a
defendant, the plaintiff must show that: “(1)
defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege
of conducting activities in [Nevada], thereby invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws; (2) [their] claims
arise out of defendants' [Nevada]-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable.”
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d at 692.
Complaint (#1) alleges that Defendants are California
residents. There are no allegations that Defendants have
connections of any kind to Nevada. Defendants have not
“availed themselves” of the laws and benefits of
Nevada. Not only are Defendants not “at home” in
Nevada, there are no aspects of the current controversy
related to Nevada. Griffin's allegations do not arise out
of any Nevada-related activities, as the ticket and appeals
all occurred in California, particularly in the City of Lake
Elsinore. Nevada courts do not have jurisdiction over
Defendants for this controversy.
defendants challenge jurisdiction in their motion to dismiss,
the burden is on the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction.
See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 692
(9th Cir. 2001). By failing to address arguments in an
opposition, a party effectively concedes a claim, making
dismissal proper. See Jenkins v. County of
Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005);
see also Walsh v. Nev. Dep't of Human Res., 471
F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006) (where opposition to a motion
to dismiss failed to address arguments in the motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff effectively abandoned the claim to
response to Defendants' motion to dismiss does not
address the Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over
Defendants. It is Griffin's burden to establish the
jurisdiction of this Court. See Lee, 250 F.3d at
692. The Court agrees with Defendants that this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction. Further, absent any opposition or
argument from Griffin that the Court does have jurisdiction,
per Jenkins, dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction is appropriate. Therefore, the Court grants
Defendants' motion to dismiss.