Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01326/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01326-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

- 1 -

19cv1326

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

THEO HANSON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[ECF No. 16];

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS TO ABATE 

[ECF No. 28, 36];

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO CERTIFY 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

[ECF No. 38];

(4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[ECF No. 40];

(5) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

[ECF No. 42];

AND

(6) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STAY 

[ECF No. 49]

v.

JAKE P. NOCH, in his individual

capacity; VITO MICHAEL ROPPO, 

in his individual capacity; RICHARD GORA, in his individual capacity;

GORA, LLC, a Connecticut Limited

Liability Company; PRO MUSIC

RIGHTS, LLC, a Florida Limited

Liability Company; PRO MUSIC

RIGHTS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a

Florida Limited Liability Company;

PRO MUSIC RIGHTS PUBLISHING

GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited

Liability Company; BRAZY

RECORDS LLC, a Florida Limited 

Liability Company; SOSA ENTERTAINMENT LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants.

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
- 2 -

19cv1326

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

Several motions are currently pending before the Court in this action, and Plaintiff 

has filed a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal concerning the 

Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel discovery. For the reasons stated 

below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s 

pending motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 16, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants responded 

by filing a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 10.) 

Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 18, 2019. (ECF No. 

13.) Defendants now bring a Motion to Dismiss this FAC for lack of jurisdiction under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(3), and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff opposed the Motion and 

Defendants filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 18, 22.) Plaintiff then filed a Supplemental Response. 

(ECF No. 30).

In the meantime, Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Abate, requesting that the Court 

delay ruling on the Motion to Dismiss until discovery can be conducted (ECF Nos. 28, 36), 

a Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying discovery until after 

the Motion to Dismiss is resolved (ECF No. 40), and a Motion to Strike Defendants’ 

responses to his discovery requests (ECF No. 42). Finally, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to 

Stay the case while he seeks a writ of mandamus (ECF No. 49) and a Motion to Certify the 

August 20, 2008 (sic) order for interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 38).

Because the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over 

any of the Defendants in this case, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss, but gives 

Plaintiff leave to amend. Additionally, the Court DENIES all motions with respect to 

discovery.

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
- 3 -

19cv1326

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When the parties dispute whether personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is 

proper, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.” Rios Props. 

Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). In ruling on the motion, the 

“court may consider evidence presented in affidavits to assist in its determination and may 

order discovery on the jurisdictional issues.” Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2017). 

Limited discovery on the issue of jurisdiction may be appropriate “where pertinent facts 

bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory 

showing of the facts is necessary.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 

2008).

When the motion is based solely on written materials, the plaintiff need only make 

“a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Pebble 

Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). A prima facie showing means 

that “the plaintiff need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over 

the defendant.” Unocal, 248 F.3d at 922. “In determining whether the plaintiff has met 

this burden, the Court must take the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and 

resolve the disputed jurisdictional facts in the plaintiff’s favor.” Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. V. 

Nissan Computer Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 2000), citing Ziegler v. 

Indian River Cty., 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

“The general rule is that personal jurisdiction over a defendant is proper if it is 

permitted by a long-arm statute and if the exercise of that jurisdiction does not violate 

federal due process.” Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1154. Both the California and federal 

long-arm statutes require compliance with due process requirements. Daimler AG, 571 

U.S. at 125; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2); Holland Am Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am., Inc., 

485 F.3d 450, 461 (9th Cir. 2007); Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 1155. 

There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Daimler AG, 571 

U.S. at 126. General jurisdiction “enables a court to hear cases unrelated to the defendant’s 

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
- 4 -

19cv1326

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

forum activities[.]” Fields v. Sedgewick Assoc. Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 310 (9th Cir. 

1986). Specific jurisdiction allows the court to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant whose 

forum-related activities gave rise to the action before the court. Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 

127.

A. General Jurisdiction

A court may assert general jurisdiction over defendants when their “affiliations with 

the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the 

forum State.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), 

citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945). “With respect to a 

corporation, the place of incorporation and principal place of business are ‘paradig[m] . . . 

bases for general jurisdiction.’” Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 136 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. 

at 922–923). “These bases afford plaintiff recourse to at least one clear and certain forum 

in which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all claims.” Id.

In assessing the substantiality of a defendant’s contacts with a state, courts examine 

the “[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, [and] economic impact” of those contacts, as well as 

the defendant’s “physical presence . . . and integration into the state’s regulatory and 

economic markets.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1224 (9th

Cir. 2011). A corporation’s “continuous activity of some sorts within a state is not enough 

to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to that activity.” 

International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318. “Although the placement of a product into the stream 

of commerce ‘may bolster an affiliation germane to specific jurisdiction,’ [the Supreme 

Court] has explained, such contacts ‘do not warrant a determination that, based on those 

ties, the forum has general jurisdiction over a defendant.’” Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 131, 

citing Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 930.

B. Specific Jurisdiction

The Ninth Circuit employs a three-part test to determine whether the defendant’s 

contacts with the forum state are sufficient to subject it to specific jurisdiction. Ballard v. 

Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). Under the three-part inquiry, specific 

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
- 5 -

19cv1326

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

jurisdiction exists only if: (1) the out-of-state defendant purposefully availed itself of the 

privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and 

protections of the forum’s laws; (2) the cause of action arose out of the defendant’s forumrelated activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Myers v. Bennett Law 

Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2001).

The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs of this specific 

jurisdiction test. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co, 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 

2004). “If the plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of the first two prongs, the burden then 

shifts to the defendant to ‘present a compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would 

not be reasonable.” Id. “If any of the three requirements is not satisfied, jurisdiction in the 

forum would deprive the defendant of due process of law.” Pebble Beach, 453 F.3d at 

1155. 

Furthermore, “[s]pecific personal jurisdiction requires a showing of forum-related 

activities of the defendant that are related to the claim asserted.” Carpenter v. Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corp., 101 F. Supp. 3d 911, 921 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 

987 F.2d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 1993)). It is “confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, 

or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. 

at 919 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, the “minimum contacts” analysis cannot be based solely on the fact 

that a defendant harmed a plaintiff who lives in the forum state. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 

U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (the “minimum contacts analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts 

with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there”); 

Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem International, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(simply alleging that a defendant engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom 

the defendant knew to be a resident of the forum state is insufficient.) While the fact that 

a defendant may have targeted an individual who resided in the forum state “may remain 

relevant to the minimum contacts inquiry, it will not, on its own, support the exercise of 

specific jurisdiction.” Axiom Foods, 874 F.3d at 1070.

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
- 6 -

19cv1326

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

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s argument in this case is hampered by the fact that the gravamen of his 

complaint is not completely clear from the text of the FAC. As best the Court can ascertain, 

Plaintiff is claiming that defendants “induced innocent investors to purchase shares in a 

corporation” that was a Nevada corporation, re-domiciled and registered in Wyoming. 

(FAC ¶¶ 15, 26 n.1.) Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Noch, a resident of 

Florida, made misstatements about the management of this Nevada/Wyoming corporation 

and that defendants engaged in security regulation violations with respect to this 

Nevada/Wyoming corporation. (Id. ¶¶ 38–44.) Plaintiff does not allege or claim that any 

of the inducement or misstatements were made in California.

Plaintiff has alleged no facts demonstrating general jurisdiction exists in this case. 

None of the individual defendants is a California resident. Mr. Noch and Mr. Roppo are 

Florida residents, and Mr. Gora is a New York resident. (FAC ¶¶ 4–6.) Furthermore, Gora 

LLC is a Connecticut LLC, while the remaining business entity defendants are Florida 

LLCs. (FAC ¶¶ 7–12.) There are also no allegations in the FAC that would support 

“continuous and systematic” contacts with the State of California, and, indeed, declarations 

filed by the Defendants support the conclusion that there is no general jurisdiction over 

these defendants. (See Decl. of Jake P. Noch, ECF No. 10-3; Decl. of Vito Michael Roppo, 

ECF No. 10-4.)

As to specific jurisdiction, Plaintiff simply fails to allege how the Defendants have 

conducted activities in California, let alone how they purposefully availed themselves of 

the privileges of conducting activities in this forum. Further, the actions complained of 

appear to be statements made in Florida about a Nevada/Wyoming corporation. Plaintiff 

has failed to meet his burden to show that the causes of action arose out of Defendants’ 

forum-related activities and what those forum-related activities were. Thus, Plaintiff has 

also failed to carry his burden of establishing specific jurisdiction. Thus, the Court grants 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FAC.

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
- 7 -

19cv1326

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

Furthermore, without further explanation, Plaintiff requests discovery on the issue of 

jurisdiction. (See Plf.’s Mot. to Abate Determination of Defs.’ Pending Mot. to Dismiss, 

ECF No. 28; Notice of Plf.’s Emergency Ex Parte Mot. and Mot. to Abate the 

Determination of Defs.’ Pending Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 36; Plf.’s Mot. for 

Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge’s Order of December 2, 2019, ECF No. 40; Plf.’s Mot.

to Strike Defs.’ Resp. to Discovery, ECF No. 42.) However, Plaintiff fails to outline what 

discovery he seeks or how such discovery would bolster his claim of personal jurisdiction. 

Hence, his requests are denied.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to certify an order ostensibly issued on August 20, 2008 for 

interlocutory appeal and requests that the matter be stayed while he seeks a writ of 

mandamus. (ECF No. 38, 49). No order was issued in this case on August 20th or in 2008. 

However, assuming Plaintiff seeks to certify for interlocutory appeal the Magistrate Judge’s 

December 17, 2019 order staying discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 43), and requests a stay while he appeals that order, those Motions are also 

denied. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 

No. 16) because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Because it is 

possible Plaintiff could allege facts supporting specific jurisdiction in this case, the Court 

grants Plaintiff leave to amend the FAC. If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, 

he must do so by February 5, 2020.

The Court further DENIES the following motions:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motions to Abate the Motion to Dismiss while discovery is 

conducted (ECF Nos. 28, 36);

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s 

Order (ECF No. 38);

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF 

No. 40);

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
- 8 -

19cv1326

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

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Discovery Answers (ECF No. 42)

(5) Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion and Motion to Stay Proceedings 

Pending the Resolution of Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 49);

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01326-BAS-WVG Document 51 Filed 01/22/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8