Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01187-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD VAUGHN OLIPHANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01187-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 29, 31

Defendants Brian T. Moynihan, Bruce R. Thompson, Natasha M. Barone, and Terry 

Hutchens (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Leonard 

Vaughn Oliphant (“Oliphant”) on numerous grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. See

Dkt. Nos. 12, 29, and 31.1 Specifically, the Defendants contend that they are not residents of 

California and have not maintained any contacts with the State of California sufficient to support 

the exercise of personal jurisdiction. 

The Court finds this issue dispositive, and thus does not reach the other challenges briefed 

by the Defendants. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.

2

 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Traditional bases for personal jurisdiction include a defendant’s consent to jurisdiction, 

personal service of the defendant within the forum state, or a defendant’s citizenship or domicile 

in the forum state. See J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780, 2787 (2011). Absent 

 

1

The Amended Complaint does not expressly identify the relationship of the Defendants to Bank 

of America. However, it appears that Moynihan and Thompson are Bank of America’s Chief 

Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, while both Barone and Hutchens 

appear to work at the North Carolina law firm that initiated a foreclosure proceeding on Oliphant’s 

North Carolina property on behalf of Bank of America in mid-2014.

2

The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 55 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 5
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 California

one of these bases, due process requires that the defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with 

the forum “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play 

and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of 

establishing that jurisdiction is proper. See Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[M]ere ‘bare bones’ assertions of minimum contacts with the forum or legal 

conclusions unsupported by specific factual allegations will not satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading 

burden.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 766 (9th Cir. 2007). In considering whether 

personal jurisdiction is proper, the court “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading 

which are contradicted by affidavit.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 

1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

Personal jurisdiction may be founded on either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. 

General jurisdiction exists when a defendant is domiciled in the forum state or his activities in the 

forum are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic.” Panavision Intern., L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 

F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). A court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant if: (1) the nonresident defendant purposefully directs his activities at the 

forum or performs some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting 

activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the plaintiff’s 

claim arises out of the forum-related activities of the nonresident defendant; and (3) the exercise of 

jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant is reasonable. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 

Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two of 

these three elements. Id. Once satisfied, the burden then shifts to the defendant to “present a 

compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

The Amended Complaint in this action spans 80 pages and 550 numbered paragraphs. See 

Dkt. No. 4. Despite its length, the Amended Complaint contains very few allegations of fact. 

From what the Court can surmise, at some point prior to August 25, 2009, Oliphant secured a loan 

of approximately $ 240,000 with a Deed of Trust to an unspecified property. Am. Compl. ¶ 83. 

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 55 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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 California

Oliphant has not made a payment on that loan since at least August 25, 2009, the date of his first 

missed payment. Id. ¶¶ 336-344. The bulk of the Amended Complaint is comprised of legal 

assertions and conclusions related to the Defendants’ alleged efforts to collect on that debt. 

Defendants represent that this case concerns a home equity line of credit of approximately 

$240,000, which Oliphant secured with a Deed of Trust against real property located in Henderson 

County, North Carolina. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. Although the Defendants move to dismiss on 

numerous grounds, their first argument is that the Court may not exercise personal jurisdiction 

because the Amended Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate any Defendant 

maintained sufficient “minimum contacts” with California. Id. at 5. The Court agrees. 

 As an initial matter, none of the “traditional bases” for jurisdiction are present: (1) 

Defendants have not consented to jurisdiction; (2) Defendants were served with the Complaint in 

North Carolina, not California; and (3) none of the Defendants are alleged to be citizens of or 

domiciled in California. See J. McIntyre Mach., 131 S.Ct. at 2787. Accordingly, in order to 

demonstrate that personal jurisdiction is appropriate, Oliphant must show that the Defendants’ 

contacts with California are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic” sufficient to exercise 

general jurisdiction, Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1320, or that the “nature and quality” of those 

contacts are sufficient to exercise specific jurisdiction, Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. 

Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977). 

Oliphant has not satisfied either standard. Despite the Court providing Oliphant two

extensions of time to file an Opposition, see Dkt. Nos. 23, 35, his brief largely ignores Moynihan 

and Thompson’s jurisdictional challenge. See Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiff did not file timely 

oppositions to Barone and Hutchens’ Motions to Dismiss. Notwithstanding this failure, the Court 

has independently reviewed the Amended Complaint and is satisfied that—even had Oliphant 

argued the existence of personal jurisdiction in his Opposition—the allegations therein would not 

permit the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. The few allegations that 

even plausibly concern the Defendants’ contacts with the State of California can be organized into 

three categories:

First, the Amended Complaint alleges that Oliphant “is informed and believes” that, 

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 55 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

despite having principal places of business in North Carolina, each of the Defendants “is doing 

business in California.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-29. Oliphant’s vague belief constitutes, at most, a 

“mere ‘bare bones’ assertion[ ] of minimum contacts with the forum” that the Ninth Circuit has 

determined “will not satisfy a plaintiff’s pleading burden.” Swartz, 476 F.3d at 766. Paragraphs 

26 through 29 of the Amended Complaint do not support either general or specific jurisdiction 

over any of the Defendants.

Second, the Amended Complaint asserts that Oliphant received several letters in mid-2014 

(which Oliphant labels “Creditor Information Packages”) from either Moynihan or Thompson

concerning his outstanding debt. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 88-89, 125, 127, 316, and 318. Defendants have 

submitted those letters to the Court as exhibits to a request for judicial notice, see Dkt. No. 13, and

Oliphant has not questioned their authenticity. “[A] court may consider a writing referenced in a 

complaint but not explicitly incorporated therein if the complaint relies on the document and its 

authenticity is unquestioned.” Swartz, 476 F.3d at 763. The Court has reviewed the 

correspondence and agrees with Defendants that those letters were sent to Oliphant from Bank of 

America Home Loans and do not bear any reference to Moynihan or Thompson. In short, 

Oliphant appears to attribute these letters to Moynihan and Thompson because they are executives

of Bank of America, not because of their personal involvement in the correspondence. Personal 

jurisdiction may not be based on that connection. Davis v. Metro Prods., Inc., 885 F.2d 515, 520 

(9th Cir. 1989) (“[A] person’s mere association with a corporation that causes injury in the forum 

state is not sufficient in itself to permit that forum to assert jurisdiction over the person.”).

Finally, the Amended Complaint alleges that Oliphant sent Moynihan and Thompson 

several letters and demands concerning his outstanding debt and their alleged misconduct during 

late 2014 and early 2015. Even assuming that Oliphant sent these letters from California, which is 

not alleged in the Amended Complaint, Oliphant’s unilateral actions cannot provide the 

foundation for personal jurisdiction against the Defendants. See Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 

434 F.3d 1127, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he unilateral activity of those who claim some 

relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum 

State . . . rather it must be actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection.”)

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 55 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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 California

(citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, none of the 

allegations in the Amended Complaint plausibly suggest that personal jurisdiction over any of the 

Defendants is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Amended Complaint. 

Although the Court doubts whether Oliphant can in good faith plead facts sufficient to support the 

Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Oliphant will be provided another 

opportunity to do so. By no later than June 26, 2015, Oliphant shall file either: (1) a Second 

Amended Complaint pleading facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the 

Defendants; or (2) a statement alerting the Court that he will not file a Second Amended 

Complaint. If Oliphant does not file a Second Amended Complaint sufficient to support personal 

jurisdiction over the Defendants, this action will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court will not 

consider a motion to extend the June 26, 2015 deadline.

Oliphant is advised that the Legal Help Center at both the San Francisco and Oakland 

Federal Courthouses provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in 

civil cases. Services are provided by appointment only. An appointment may be scheduled by 

either: (1) signing up in the appointment book located outside the door of the Legal Help Center in 

San Francisco or Oakland; (2) calling (415) 782-8982. The Court strongly encourages Oliphant to 

take advantage of this resource.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01187-HSG Document 55 Filed 06/04/15 Page 5 of 5