Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bosh v. Shed Media 11-3782 (C.D. Cal.; Aug. 16, 2011) (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)

Bosh v. Shed Media 11-3782 (C.D. Cal.; Aug. 16, 2011) (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 87 |Likes:
In a dispute over Basketball Wives: Los Angeles, court grants Allison Mathis' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In a dispute over Basketball Wives: Los Angeles, court grants Allison Mathis' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Sep 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/19/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
-1-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER W. BOSH,Plaintiff,v.SHED MEDIA US INC., et al.,Defendants.))))))))))))Case No. CV 11-03782 DMG (PJWx)
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONTO DISMISS
 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Allison M. Mathis’ Motion toDismiss. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
I.PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 
On May 2, 2011, Plaintiff Christopher W. Bosh (“Bosh”) filed this action againstDefendants Shed Media US Inc. (“Shed Media”) and Allison M. Mathis (“Mathis”).Pursuant to a settlement agreement, Bosh stipulated to dismiss Shed Media withprejudice on May 24, 2011 [Doc. # 7]. On June 20, 2011, Mathis filed a Motion toDismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. # 18]. Bosh filed his Opposition on July11, 2011 [Doc. # 27]. On July 25, 2011, Mathis filed her Reply [Doc. # 29]. The Courttook this matter under submission on August 4, 2011 [Doc. # 31].
Case 2:11-cv-03782-DMG -PJW Document 32 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:219
JS-6
 
 
-2-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
II.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Bosh is a professional basketball player for the Miami Heat. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Hemaintains a residence in Texas (
id 
. ¶ 2) and Florida (Mathis Decl. ¶ 14). Bosh andMathis lived together in Texas during which time Mathis became pregnant with his child.(Compl. ¶¶ 11-12; Mathis Decl. ¶ 3.) According to Mathis, Bosh “suddenly and withoutexplanation abandoned [her] when [she] was seven months pregnant, without money ortransportation and with no way to provide for [her]self.” (Mathis Decl. ¶ 4.) Due to her“deteriorating medical condition,” Mathis left to live with her mother in Maryland, whereshe gave birth. (
 Id 
. ¶ 5.) Subsequently, Mathis relocated to Florida, where she has livedat all times relevant to this lawsuit. (
 Id 
. ¶ 6.)Shed Media produces the reality television series “Basketball Wives,” whichfeatures women who are currently dating, formerly dated, or were married to NBAbasketball players. (Compl. ¶ 14; Mathis Decl. ¶ 7.) It hired Mathis to appear on theprogram. (Compl. ¶ 13; Mathis Decl. ¶ 7.) Mathis reported for filming in Florida andreceived payments there for her appearances. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 8.)Bosh then filed the instant lawsuit, alleging eleven causes of action under theLanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and related tort claims under California statutory andcommon law. After Bosh filed this lawsuit, Shed Media did not call Mathis back to thefilming location. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 10.) Mathis is currently unemployed and without anyincome. (
 Id 
. ¶¶ 12, 15.)
III.LEGAL STANDARD
Consistent with due process, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over adefendant “only if he or she has ‘certain minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play andsubstantial justice.’”
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme
, 433F.3d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 2006) (
en banc
) (quoting
 Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington
, 326
Case 2:11-cv-03782-DMG -PJW Document 32 Filed 08/16/11 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:220
 
 
-3-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is appropriate.
 Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.
, 611 F.3d601, 608 (9th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction,a district court applies the law of the state in which the court sits.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P.4(k)(1);
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
, 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).Because California’s long-arm jurisdictional statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10, iscoextensive with federal due process requirements, the jurisdictional analysis under eitherfederal or state law is the same.
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.
, __ F.3d __,2011 WL 3437040, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing
Schwarzenegger 
, 374 F.3d at800-01).Courts follow a three-part test to determine whether they may appropriatelyexercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: (1) the defendant must (a)“purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum orresident thereof”; or (b) “perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of theprivilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits andprotections of its laws”; (2) the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) “the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play andsubstantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable.”
CollegeSource
, 2011 WL 3437040, at *6(quoting
Schwarzenegger 
, 374 F.3d at 802). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must“set forth a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.”
 Id 
. (quoting
 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
, 471 U.S. 462, 476-78, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)).
IV.DISCUSSION
The first prong of the test for specific personal jurisdiction refers to both“purposeful availment” and “purposeful direction.” In general, personal jurisdictionshould be analyzed under the “purposeful availment” standard.
 J. McIntyre Machinery,
Case 2:11-cv-03782-DMG -PJW Document 32 Filed 08/16/11 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:221

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->