Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02915/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02915-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARISSA ETTORE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2915-LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EARLY DISCOVERY; AND

ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

vs.

DAVID CALVO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Larissa Ettore originally filed her claims against Defendants Ronald Huxtable

and David Calvo as a third party complaint in the related case of Ayers v. Lee, 14cv542-LAB

(BGS). Huxtable and Calvo then moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because

Ayers was already winding down at that point, and because Ettore’s claims had no direct

relationship to the claims pending in Ayers, the Court severed those claims and directed

Ettore to file a new complaint. 

Defendants then filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Docket nos.

4 and 5.) Huxtable’s motion also sought dismissal for improper venue; and Calvo’s, for

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Larissa Ettore moved to continue the hearing on those

motions, and also for early jurisdictional discovery.

/ / /

/ / /

- 1 - 16cv2915

Case 3:16-cv-02915-LAB-BGS Document 13 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

Discussion

The fact that Ettore filed her claims in a case where the Court already had personal

jurisdiction over the other parties does not mean the Court has jurisdiction over Huxtable and

Calvo. 

Their motions point out that the underlying claims in this case arose primarily in

Nevada, and that neither of them is resides here or resided here at the time the claims arose. 

Huxtable and Calvo are residents of Florida and Texas, respectively. They also argue that

neither of them directed their actions towards this District or towards California, so as to

make personal jurisdiction or venue proper here. 

Ettore argues that she has a colorable claim that the Court can exercise personal

jurisdiction over Defendants. She bases this on the complaint in Ayers. She refers to an

order by the SEC, which she attaches to her complaint. She alleges that some defendants

in the related case, Ayers v. Lee, were located in this District, or in California. She also

refers generally to claims that Calvo and Huxtable assisted James Yiu Lee in his scam. 

Ettore resides in this District, but does not allege that Calvo or Huxtable had any contact with

her here.

The Ayers complaint does not mention California as the situs for any part of the

claims, though it does mention a number of other states. Ayers was originally filed in the

District of Nevada, and transferred to this District only when the defendants waived their

objections to defective venue, so that the case could be adjudicated along with the related

case, S.E.C. v. Lee, 14cv347-LAB (BGS), which was then pending in this District. 

The SEC order (Complaint, Ex. B) does not identify any connection between the

underlying claims and this District. It identifies various things Huxtable and Lee did, the bulk

of which appear to have taken place either in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, or in some place

where one of the Ayers plaintiffs lived. The only apparent connection between Huxtable and

this District is that Huxtable sent communications to Lee, and Lee was a resident of this

District. But the Ayers complaint makes clear much of what Lee did occurred in Nevada, 

/ / /

- 2 - 16cv2915

Case 3:16-cv-02915-LAB-BGS Document 13 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

Colorado, or other states. And in any case, even if Huxtable had some connection with this

District, it would not give the Court any basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Calvo.

“It is clear that the question of whether to allow discovery is generally within the

discretion of the trial judge. However, where pertinent facts bearing on the question of

jurisdiction are in dispute, discovery should be allowed.” America West Airlines, Inc. v. GPA

Group, Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801 (9th Cir. 1989). Where the movant can point to “little more

than a hunch that [early discovery] might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts,” denial of

discovery is appropriate. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts

in this circuit have required plaintiffs to present at least a colorable basis for jurisdiction. See

Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi-Lan, Inc., 2010 WL 3515759, at *4 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 2010).

Here, Ettore has not even presented a colorable basis for personal jurisdiction. None

of the pleadings or evidence she points to suggest that there might be evidence showing that

either Huxtable or Calvo might be subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. The case

for jurisdiction over Calvo is even weaker, because he is not named in the SEC order. 

Furthermore, unlike some other cases, alternative venues are available where jurisdiction

would be proper. At a bare minimum, personal jurisdiction would be proper in the two

districts where Calvo and Huxtable reside. The claims might need to be severed in order to

be transferred there. Another possibility is the District of Nevada, where most of the

underlying claims arose. 

Conclusion and Order

The motion for early jurisdictional discovery is DENIED. Ettore requested that the

hearing on the two motions to dismiss be continued to allow her to seek early discovery. But

during the pendency of her ex parte discovery request, the deadline to file her oppositions

to the Defendants’ two motions passed. 

Ettore may file her oppositions to the two motions by Monday, April 24, 2017 and

Defendants may file their reply briefs by Monday May 1, 2017. The hearing on the two

motions is CONTINUED from Monday, April 3 to Monday, May 8, 2017 at 11:15 a.m. The 

/ / /

- 3 - 16cv2915

Case 3:16-cv-02915-LAB-BGS Document 13 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

parties should bear in mind that the Court may vacate the hearing if it determines oral

argument is not necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2017 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 4 - 16cv2915

Case 3:16-cv-02915-LAB-BGS Document 13 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4