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.

Rowland v. Paris Las Vegas

United States District Court, S.D. California

February 25, 2014

ELIZABETH ROWLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
PARIS LAS VEGAS, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER: 1) GRANTING DEFENDANT CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING COMPANY, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. No. 3.] 2) VACATING MOTION HEARING

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is Specially Appearing Defendant Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 3.) The parties have fully briefed the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.) The motion is submitted on the papers without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Upon review of the moving papers, admissible evidence, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff Elizabeth Rowland ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Paris Las Vegas and Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. in California Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 3 "Compl.") Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two state causes of action: (1) premises liability; and (2) general negligence. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges slipping upon a substance on the tile flooring at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, on May 16, 2013, causing her to fall and sustain personal injuries. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges receiving substantial medical treatment for her injuries in San Diego County. (Compl. at 2.)

On October 31, 2013, Defendant Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. filed a notice of removal, removing the present action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal.) On November 7, 2013, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss or transfer venue pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). (Dkt. No. 3.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must be authorized under both state and federal law. St. Ventures, LLC v. KBA Assets & Aquisitions, LLC, 1:12-CV-01058-LJO, 2013 WL 1749901 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013). California's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process set by the United States Constitution. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ยง 410.10. Thus, "the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the same." Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc. , 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1101 (2012).

Due process requires that a defendant "must have certain minimum contacts' with the relevant forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Mavrix Photo , 647 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).

The type of minimum contacts required to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant may be "specific" or "general" in nature. A court may have general jurisdiction over a defendant where "the defendant's contacts with the forum state are so pervasive as to justify the exercise of jurisdiction over the person in all matters." St. Ventures, 2013 WL 1749901 at *3. Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, "arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum giving rise to the subject of the litigation" and only applies to the case at issue. Id.

When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc. , 704 F.3d 668, 671-72 (9th Cir. 2012). However, in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a "prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.'" Id . (quoting Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy , 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006)). Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. AT & T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert , 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court may not assume the truth of such allegations if they are contradicted by affidavit. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., Inc. , 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977). All disputed facts must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Washington Shoe , 704 F.3d at 671-72.

DISCUSSION

I. Requests for Judicial Notice and Objections to Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that judicial notice may be taken of adjudicative facts. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(a). A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). "Since the effect of taking judicial notice under Rule 201 is to preclude a party from introducing contrary evidence and in effect, directing a verdict against him as to the fact noticed, the fact must be one that only an unreasonable person would insist on ...


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.