Sebastian v. One Brands, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Defendant Hershey Company moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against Hershey without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted“Hershey's motion is therefore granted as unopposed.” | agree with court The court correctly applied local rule Civ. L.R. 7.1.f.3.c, which allows for the granting of unopposed motions, and cited Ghazali v. Moran for the proposition that a court may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural outcome when a party is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile in a proper forum. |
Claims against Defendant Hershey Company dismissed without prejudice“All claims asserted against Defendant Hershey Company are dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the correct remedy for a lack of personal jurisdiction, as it does not adjudicate the merits of the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the motion, notes the lack of opposition, applies the relevant local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent, and orders the appropriate relief (dismissal without prejudice).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 |} BRITTANY SEBASTIAN, individually Case No.: 20cv0009-L-MDD ll and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION 13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 14 ONE BRANDS LLC et al., Toots. S MOTION 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant Hershey Company’s (“Hershey”) motion to 18 || dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal 19 ||jurisdiction. (Doc. no. 10). Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. no. 17.) 20 || Hershey's motion is therefore granted as unopposed. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1.f.3.c; 21 || Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). All claims asserted against 22 || Defendant Hershey Company are dismissed without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 10, 2020 wu oer ftp 6 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 27 28