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.

Shepard Johnson v. Chester Mitchell

June 25, 2012

SHEPARD JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHESTER MITCHELL, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff first initiated this diversity action for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution on July 23, 2010, and is currently proceeding with the third amended complaint filed on November 6, 2011. (See Dkt. No. 119.)

Presently pending before the court is defendant Patricia Hermanson's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against her for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), originally filed on April 26, 2012. (Dkt. No. 193.)*fn1 On May 1, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion within 21 days, and permitted defendant to file a reply brief within 14 days of service with plaintiff's opposition, after which the motion would be submitted on the record without oral argument. (Dkt. No. 194.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 22, 2012, and defendant filed a reply brief on June 13, 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 201, 207.)

After considering the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, the court's record in this matter, and the applicable law, the court FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

BACKGROUND

The facts and procedural history of this case were previously described in detail in the court's March 2, 2012 order and findings and recommendations related to other motions filed in this matter. (See Dkt. No. 169.) As such, the court only sets forth some limited background facts here.

Plaintiff is a real estate developer who claims that the defendants purchased lots for a planned unit development on an island in Panama. (See Third Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 119 ["TAC"] at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not want to be subject to the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions ("CC&Rs") for the development, and so rather than settling the matter by way of a contract dispute resolution, defendants "banded together and launched a barrage of deliberate falsehoods, and engaged in wrongful conduct...aimed at upsetting and intimidating him, destroying his reputation and business, disrupting relations with other lot owners, and discouraging prospective purchasers. (TAC at 3-4.) Defendants also allegedly initiated criminal proceedings against him in the Panama courts which were purportedly later dismissed, and which are the subject of plaintiff's malicious prosecution and conspiracy claims in this litigation. (TAC at 4-6.) Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to file for bankruptcy on July 3, 2007, "due in significant part to the false criminal complaints filed by Defendants." (TAC at 5.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Patricia Hermanson's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of PersonalJurisdiction

Defendant Patricia Hermanson moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims against her pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), contending that she does not have the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state of California to allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over her. Plaintiff contends that defendant waived any defense regarding lack of personal jurisdiction and that defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with California to allow for the exercise of this court's personal jurisdiction over her.

Whether Defendant Waived Any Defense Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiff initially contends that defendant waived any defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction, because she re-filed defendant Todd Johnson's answer as her own while only making minor changes to it. (Compare Dkt. Nos. 84 and 114.) This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that the mere copying of another defendant's answer and using it as a template amount to a waiver. Although plaintiff references a prior court order pertaining to defendants Chester and Catherine Mitchell (dkt. no. 78), that order contains no language suggesting that waiver results from a defendant's failure to "file an answer using her own words." To the extent that defendant's alleged copying and use of defendant Todd Johnson's answer resulted in some drafting errors, e.g., improper gender-specific references, these errors are de minimis and do not result in waiver. Defendant, like plaintiff, is proceeding pro se and the court accordingly has a duty to construe her pleadings and filings liberally. Accordingly, the court proceeds to the merits of the motion.

Whether Personal Jurisdiction Exists Over Defendant Patricia Hermanson

The plaintiff generally bears the burden of establishing the district court's personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2003). "A non-resident defendant may be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court where the defendant has either a continuous and systematic presence in the state (general jurisdiction), or minimum contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction 'does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice' (specific jurisdiction)." Martinez v. Manheim Central California, 2011 WL 1466684, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 325 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). "Where there is no federal statute applicable to determine personal jurisdiction, a district court should apply the law of the state where the court is located." Id. (citing Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)). "California law requires only that the exercise of personal jurisdiction comply with federal due process requirements." Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 and Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d at 800-01).

In her motion and affidavit, defendant Patricia Hermanson states that, although she lived and worked in California as a school teacher many years ago, she has been a resident of Minnesota since 1972, is presently registered to vote in Minnesota and owns her homestead property in Minnesota. (Dkt. No. 193 at 37.) She has never conducted business in California, has not paid taxes in California since 1972, and does not maintain any financial assets or bank accounts in California. (Id.) Upon her divorce from co-defendant Ford Hermanson in 2010, she was awarded property in Minnesota, and Mr. Hermanson was awarded all property in Panama that is the genesis of this litigation. (Id.) Her only involvement with the California courts has been plaintiff's prior action filed in California state court based on the same property dispute in Panama. (Id.)

Plaintiff does not argue that this court has general jurisdiction over defendant Patricia Hermanson. It is clear that she does not have the requisite continuous and systematic contacts with California that approximate a physical presence. Instead, plaintiff ...


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.