Jane T.C. Doe v. G6 Hospitality, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court concluded that neither Hilton nor G6 Hospitality was subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in California. The dismissals were without prejudice, and G6 Hospitality’s motion to transfer was denied as moot.

Holdings

1. The court lacked general personal jurisdiction over Hilton and G6 Hospitality because neither corporation was at home in California and plaintiff failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for general jurisdiction elsewhere.
2. The court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Hilton and G6 Hospitality because plaintiff failed to show that her claims arose out of or resulted from defendants' California-related activities.
3. The court granted defendants' unopposed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), without prejudice to plaintiff's right to refile in a court having personal jurisdiction over defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had general personal jurisdiction over Hilton or G6 Hospitality in California.
2. Whether the court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hilton or G6 Hospitality based on their alleged contacts with California.
3. Whether the defendants' motion to transfer should be decided after dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed