United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
S. Lasnik, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to
dismiss, Dkt. # 13, defendants' motion for a stay of
discovery, Dkt. # 12, and plaintiffs motions for extensions
of time, Dkt. ## 16, 20, 23. The Court has considered the
parties' memoranda, exhibits, and declarations. For the
reasons explained below, defendants' motion to dismiss is
GRANTED, and the remaining motions are DENIED.
filed this complaint against Ford Motor Company and several
individuals apparently based on alleged flaws in a 2006 Ford
Ranger that caused plaintiff injury.
Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice, because
plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts to make a
minimal showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
defendants. When a defendant moves to be dismissed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff must
make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction
to survive the motion. Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins.
Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff must provide evidence
that, if true, would support the Court's exercise of
jurisdiction over the defendant. Id Absent consent,
the Court may only exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant if the Court has either general or specific
jurisdiction. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta
Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000).
General jurisdiction proceeds from a defendant having
contacts with a forum so pervasive that the defendant is
essentially at home there. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134
S.Ct. 746, 753 (2014). Specific jurisdiction depends upon an
initial showing that the defendant committed an act or
transaction by which the defendant “purposefully
avail[ed] himself of the privilege of conducting activities
in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections
of its laws.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech.
Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977).
Here, plaintiff has not made a minimal showing that the Court
has specific or general jurisdiction over any of the
defendants. Ford Motor Company is a national car
manufacturer, which could potentially be shown to be subject
to either form of jurisdiction, but plaintiff's complaint
lacks minimal factual allegations to show either. In
addition, plaintiff makes little mention of the individual
defendants other than in the complaint's caption. Without
more, the Court is not satisfied plaintiff has sufficiently
alleged personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants. The
Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint without prejudice and
grant plaintiff leave to amend in order to address the
Court also adds that in order to show that he is entitled to
relief, plaintiff must allege facts which, taken as a whole,
state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see
also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (requiring “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief). Even reading the complaint generously
given plaintiff s pro se status, the Court finds it
difficult to ascertain whether plaintiff is entitled to
relief-or even the nature of his claims-based on the
complaint in its current form.
because the Court dismisses this action based on the
jurisdictional reasons explained above, the Court makes no
conclusion of the sufficiency of plaintiff s service of
process on defendants. Plaintiff appears to have mailed
copies of the complaint by certified mail to Ford's
Customer Relationship Center. Compare Dkt. # 28-1 at
27, with Contact Us, Ford.com,
https://corporate.ford.com/contact-us.html (last visited Dec.
12, 2017). The Court is not aware if the Customer
Relationship Center employee who received the complaint
qualifies as an agent authorized to receive service for Ford,
see Kwan v. Schlein, 441 F.Supp.2d 491, 496
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding director of customer services did
not qualify as authorized agent), but large corporations
often contract with registered agents to accept service of
process in various locations, see, e.g., Jacob
Beaty, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
3:17-cv-5201-RBL, Dkt. # 17 (Mar. 30, 2017) (providing proof
of service on Ford Motor Company by serving registered agent
CT Corporation System).
the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion, Dkt. # 13, is
GRANTED and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Court grants plaintiff leave to amend, if
plaintiff determines that he can, consistent with his
obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, amend
his complaint to address the aforementioned deficiencies.
Plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of this order to
file an amended complaint.
the Court's determination on defendants' motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs pending motions for extensions of time,
Dkt. ## 16, 20, 23, and defendants' motion ...