Woods v. Kurland ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
TERRANCE WOODS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1525 (ESH)
)
STANFORD KURLAND, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 9, 2013, defendants Stanford L. Kurland and David A. Spector (“the
PennyMac defendants”) filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), (3), and (6) to
dismiss the complaint. On December 10, 2013, the Court issued an order advising the pro se
plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss no later than January 10, 2014, and informing him
that if he did not timely respond, the motion could be deemed conceded and result in the
dismissal of the complaint. (Order, Dec. 10, 2012 [ECF No. 4].) Plaintiff has neither responded
nor sought an extension of time in which to respond. Accordingly, the PennyMac defendants’
motion to dismiss will be granted as conceded. See Local Rule of Civ. P. 7(b).
In the alternative, the Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing a factual basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Rossmann v. Chase
Home Finance, LLC, 772 F. Supp. 2d 169, 171 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Crane v. N.Y. Zoological
Society, 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). The requirement for personal jurisdiction “must be
met as to each defendant.” Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332 (1980). In order to meet this
burden, a plaintiff must allege specific acts connecting the defendant with the forum state.
Second Amend. Found. v. U.S. Conf. of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
In this case, plaintiff has not made any allegations regarding the geographical contacts of
these two defendants to this jurisdiction. To the contrary, plaintiff’s only geographic allegations
regarding the PennyMac defendants are that their employer has a corporate headquarters in
Moorpark, California (in the Central District of California) and that the property at issue in this
case is in Grand Prairie, Texas, which is in the Northern District of Texas. (See Compl. at 3-4.)
For this reason, even if plaintiff had timely filed a response, the Court would be required to
dismiss his claim as to the PennyMac defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss as to defendants
Kurland and Spector will be GRANTED. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: January 23, 2014
2