Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03401-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 On April 3, 2008, defendant eNOM, Inc. (“eNOM”) filed a “Response to Network

Solution, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss,” which filing is, in essence, eNOM’s own motion to

dismiss, based on the theory that the Agreement’s forum selection clause applies to eNOM,

a successor domain name registrar, as well. (See Def. eNOM’s Resp. at 2:23-3:17.) 

Because such motion was filed as a “response” to NSI’s motion to dismiss, and, moreover,

was filed subsequent to the deadline for plaintiff to file opposition, plaintiff has not had the

opportunity to respond to such argument. Accordingly, the Court hereby affords plaintiff the

opportunity to file opposition, no later than April 25, 2008, to eNOM’s motion to dismiss.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN A. RUSSO, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-3401 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT NETWORK SOLUTIONS,

INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

AFFORDING PLAINTIFF

OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANT ENOM’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is the motion filed March 14, 2008 by defendant Network Solutions,

Inc. (“NSI”) to dismiss the instant action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(3), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No opposition has been filed.1

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court

hereby VACATES the April 18, 2008 hearing on the matter, and, for the reasons stated by

NSI with respect to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), (see NSI’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2:11-

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 98 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

 In light of such finding, the Court does not address NSI’s motion to the extent such

motion is based on Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6).

3

 To the extent NSI’s motion includes a request for dismissal with prejudice as a

sanction pursuant to Rule 41(b), said request is DENIED. See Civil L.R. 7-8.

2

20, 7:25-9:9; Decl. of M. Linda Nguyen Ex. 1), finds the forum selection clause contained in

the “Domain Name Registration Agreement” (“Agreement”), the veracity and application of

which agreement and clause plaintiff does not contest, requires that the above-titled action

be brought in the first instance exclusively in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia.2

Accordingly, NSI’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED to the extent NSI seeks

dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), and plaintiff’s claims against NSI are hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff’s refiling such claims in an appropriate forum.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03401-MMC Document 98 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 2