Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03587/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03587-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD NORMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERSANGO, LLC, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-03587-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 23 

Plaintiff brings this derivative shareholder action against defendants for alleged breaches 

of fiduciary duties and other violations of law from June 27, 2011 through the present. (Dkt. No. 

1, “Compl.”) Specifically, plaintiff brings the following causes of action against defendants 

Patrick Strateman and Amir Taaki: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) gross mismanagement; and 

(iii) abuse of control. Plaintiff also brings the following claims against defendants Patrick 

Strateman and Jamie Strateman: (i) conspiracy to commit conversion of corporate funds; (ii) 

conversion of corporate funds and other assets; (iii) conspiracy to commit fraud; and (iv) fraud. 

Additionally, plaintiff brings a claim for unjust enrichment against Patrick Strateman only. 

Finally, plaintiff brings a demand for an accounting of all of Intersango, LLC’s assets. 

On September 1, 2016, defendant Patrick Strateman filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

failure to state a claim, respectively. (Dkt. No. 23.) On September 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a 

notice of non-opposition, but requested that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 31.) On September 21, 2016, 

defendant Patrick Strateman filed a reply agreeing that the action should be dismissed without 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 32.) 

Case 4:16-cv-03587-YGR Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted on this motion, the 

Court GRANTS defendant’s motion and DISMISSES the action without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from this Order to submit an amended 

complaint, and defendants shall have fourteen (14) days thereafter to file responsive papers. If no 

amended complaint is filed within the period set by the Court, the Clerk shall close the action. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 23. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 27, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-03587-YGR Document 33 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2