Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02226/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02226-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA JETTE

Plaintiff, No. C 05-2226 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING AND

DENYING THIRD PARTY

GEORGE MCQUEEN, et al., MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Third party defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the third party plaintiff’s

complaint came on for hearing before this court on September 27, 2006. Third party

plaintiff Michael Friel (“Friel”) appeared through his counsel, Robert R. Riggs. Third party

defendants Henry H. Katz (“Katz”) and Seth L. Goldstein (“Goldstein”) appeared through

their counsel, Maureen M. Bryan. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered

the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court

hereby GRANTS third party defendant Katz’ motion to dismiss, and DENIES third party

defendant Goldstein’s motion to dismiss, for the reasons stated at the hearing, and

summarized as follows.

1. With respect to third party defendant Katz, the court finds that no personal

jurisdiction over him exists. Third party plaintiff Friel concedes that no general jurisdiction

exists, and is unable, in the alternative, to establish that the Ninth Circuit’s three-prong test

for specific jurisdiction is satisfied. See, e.g., Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath

Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2002). Friel’s reliance on limited

correspondence from Katz is insufficient to establish proof of purposeful availment, in view

of Katz’ declaration affirmatively establishing both a lack of physical contact with the state

Case 4:05-cv-02226-PJH Document 71 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of California, and the absence of any legal representation of the plaintiff Jette in the

underlying California probate action. Moreover, the court also finds that the exercise of

personal jurisdiction over Katz would be unreasonable under the circumstances, in view of

his lack of contacts with the state of California, and the underlying plaintiff’s own status as a

non-California resident. 

2. With respect to Friel’s third party complaint against Goldstein, the court finds

that subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint exists pursuant to the supplemental

jurisdiction provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and furthermore, that Friel has standing to

assert a claim for contribution and indemnity against Goldstein. As to the former, no

exception to supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(b) is applicable, since Friel is an

underlying defendant and subsection (b) is interpreted to apply to underlying plaintiffs only. 

As such, no independent basis of jurisdiction is necessary, and the fact that Goldstein and

Friel are both residents of California does not bar the third party complaint. As to the latter,

Friel has sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a possible theory of liability against

Goldstein, under California’s doctrine of equitable indemnity. This is sufficient to establish

standing. See, e.g., Ellison v. Shell Oil Co., 882 F.2d 349, 354 (9th Cir. 1989); see also

American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578, 583 (1978). Accordingly,

Goldstein’s argument that standing is lacking fails. 

For the above reasons, the court hereby GRANTS third party defendant Katz’ motion

to dismiss third party plaintiff Friel’s complaint against him, and DENIES third party

defendant Goldstein’s motion to dismiss third party plaintiff Friel’s complaint against him. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02226-PJH Document 71 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2