Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02077/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02077-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 8/7/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHILLIP J. KRONZER FOUNDATION FOR

RELIGIOUS RESEARCH and PHILLIP J.

KRONZER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHRISTINE DOLAN, THE GLOBAL

COALITION TO END HUMAN

TRAFFICKING NOW, and DOES ONE

THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02077 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 69, 73, 74, 77]

Plaintiffs Phillip J. Kronzer Foundation for Religious Research and Phillip J. Kronzer

(collectively "Kronzer") filed this action against Christine Dolan and the Global Coalition to End

Human Trafficking Now ("GCEHTN"). Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss. 

On July 19, 2006—two days before the scheduled hearing date on the motions to

dismiss—Kronzer filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Dolan. As Dolan has filed neither an

answer nor a motion for summary judgment, Kronzer's notice meets the requirements of Rule

41(a)(1)(i) and was therefore effective to dismiss Dolan. The court therefore lacks the authority to

grant Dolan's request to make her dismissal with prejudice. Dolan's dismissal does not appear to

be covered by the last sentence of Rule 41(a), which states a second dismissal is with prejudice if

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 89 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 2

it is "based on or includ[es] the same claim," although the parties appear to have previously

engaged in litigation involving other claims.

Dolan's dismissal leaves the sole cause of action in Kronzer's operative complaint one

seeking a declaratory judgment that GCEHTN "is the alter ego of" the International Humanitarian

Campaign Against the Exploitation of Children ("IHCAEC"), against which Kronzer obtained a

default judgment before this court in Case No. C-04-01462. See First Am. Compl. ("FAC") at 6. 

GCEHTN has moved to dismiss Kronzer's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, under Rule

12(b)(2); improper venue, under Rule 12(b)(3); and failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted, under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Krozner alleges that GCEHTN was formed and is based in Washington, D.C. FAC ¶¶ 3, 7. 

Kronzer also alleges that GCEHTN "is connected to Knightsbridge, Inc, a California non-profit." 

Id. ¶ 10. While GCEHTN has a website on which it solicits donations, it "has not received any

donations from any California residents or specifically solicited donations from any California

residents." Am. Black Decl. ¶ 16. 

California courts clearly lack general jurisdiction over GCEHTN. For this court to have

specific jurisdiction over GCEHTN, the court must determine that "(1) the defendant has

performed some act or consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully

availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or

results from the defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is

reasonable." Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, __ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1897091, *2 (9th Cir. Jul. 12,

2006). The first prong may be satisfied by showing the defendant engaged in "action taking place

in the forum that invokes the benefits and protections of the laws in the forum" or "action taking

place outside the forum that is directed at the forum." Id. at *3 (citations omitted). A passive

website, with nothing more, is not "expressly aimed" at a jurisdiction where it is accessible and is

therefore not evidence of purposeful availment. Id. at *4; see also id. at *5 ("when a website

advertiser does nothing other than register a domain name and post an essentially passive website

and nothing else is done to encourage residents of the forum state, there is no personal

jurisdiction.") (brackets and quotation marks omitted); id. at *6 (rejecting "any contention that a

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 89 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 3

passive website constitutes expressed aiming"). 

Nor has Kronzer satisfied the second prong, that his "claim must be one which arises out of

or results from the defendant's forum-related activities." See Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130

F.3d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1997). Kronzer's claim deals only with the formation of GCEHTN, which,

by his own admission, occurred wholly in Washington, D.C. That GCEHTN has a website

accessible in California and "is connected to Knightsbridge" is insufficiently related to the

formation of GCEHTN. Though the allegation that GCEHTN was created to avoid a judgment of

this court makes it a close question, the court must conclude that it lacks specific jurisdiction over

GCEHTN for Kronzer's claim as pled.

For similar reasons, venue is improper here because GCEHTN does not reside in California

and all substantial events giving rise to Kronzer's claim against GCEHTN occurred in

Washington, D.C. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). The court reaches neither GCEHTN's motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) nor the merits of Kronzer's claims.

"Where a plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on

bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants, the Court need not permit

even limited discovery." Terracom v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995). As

Kronzer has not made a sufficient showing to justify jurisdictional discovery, his jurisdictional

discovery request is denied. 

At oral argument, Kronzer admitted a claim for declaratory relief may not be the best way to

proceed against GCEHTN. Kronzer requested that any dismissal be with leave to amend. 

Kronzer's request for leave to amend is granted, but Kronzer should ensure that any future filings

meet the requirements of Rule 11(b).

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court 

(1) grants defendant GCEHTN's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and 

 improper venue, though without prejudice to refiling;

(2) does not reach GCEHTN's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 

 relief can be granted; and 

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 89 Filed 08/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 4

(3) denies Kronzer's request for discovery.

DATED: 8/2/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 89 Filed 08/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 5

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Jonathan Levy 

Law Offices of Thomas Easton 

2890 Emerald Street 

Eugene, OR 97403 

Thomas Easton 

Law Office of Thomas Easton 

967 Sunset Dr 

Springfield, OR 97477 

Counsel for Defendants:

Christine Dolan (pro se)

3421 Dent Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Arturo Esteban Sandoval; Jill M. Kastner 

McDermott, Will & Emery 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 89 Filed 08/07/06 Page 5 of 5