(PS) Bordin v. Rau et al, No. 2:2022cv02046 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 04/03/2023 RECOMMENDING that the 9 Motion to Dismiss be granted and that this action be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Spichka, K.)

Download PDF

(PS) Bordin v. Rau et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GENE BORDIN, 12 No. 2:22-CV-2046-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JON RAU, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 17 18 Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9. 19 Plaintiff initiated this action by way of a complaint filed on November 14, 2022. 20 See ECF No. 1. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of the State of California 21 and that both named defendants – Jon and Josh Rau – are residents of the State of Nevada. See 22 id. at 2, 4. Plaintiff asserts subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See id. at 23 3. 24 personal jurisdiction. See ECF No. 9; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 25 In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that the action must be dismissed for lack of In their declarations submitted in support of the motion to dismiss, Defendants Jon 26 and Josh Rau state that, in August 2016, Plaintiff asked the Raus if they knew of a location in 27 Fallon, Nevada, Plaintiff could rent to operate and store beekeeping equipment. See ECF No. 9, 28 ps. 3. The Raus informed Plaintiff they had recently purchased commercial property at 300 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Dorral Way in Fallon, Nevada, that Plaintiff could lease. See id. Thereafter, Plaintiff and the 2 Raus agreed on terms and Plaintiff brought his equipment to the Raus’ property. See id. 3 Following this, Plaintiff did not return to the property for several years. See id. According to the 4 Raus, Plaintiff never paid rent as agreed, never returned to the property, and never communicated 5 with them regarding his plans. See id. While the Raus communicated with Plaintiff a few times 6 in 2017 and 2018, they never heard from Plaintiff after March 2018 and assumed Plaintiff had 7 simply abandoned his equipment. See id. In late 2022, Plaintiff arrived unannounced at the 8 Raus’ property in Fallon, Nevada, to collect his equipment. See id. The Raus agreed that 9 Plaintiff could have access to their property to retrieve his equipment, but only once Plaintiff paid 10 the rent he owed for the past several years. See id. Plaintiff refused. See id. To date, Plaintiff’s 11 equipment remains on the Raus’ property in Fallon, Nevada. See id. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that this Court lacks personal 12 13 jurisdiction over them. See id. at 3-7. Based on the moving papers, the Court agrees. 14 Specifically, Defendants have met their burden of establishing that there is no relationship 15 between the non-resident Defendants’ conduct and the forum state. Because Plaintiff has not 16 filed any opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing 17 otherwise. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Specifically, Plaintiff 18 has not established either general or specific jurisdiction in California. Finally, Eastern District of 19 California Local Rule 239(c), (l) permits the Court to construe Plaintiff’s lack of opposition as 20 waiver of any opposition to granting the motion. The Court does so here and will recommend 21 dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff is free to re-file his action in the appropriate 22 court in Nevada. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 2 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, be granted; and 3 2. This action be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 6 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 7 with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 8 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 9 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 Dated: April 3, 2023 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.