1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 AUTUMN CAMBRON, Case No.: 24-cv-2498-CAB-VET

14 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING GRAMAJO’S

15 v. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK

OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION;

16 SCALE SOCIAL, INC. and RALPH D.

SCHEDULING ORDER

GRAMAJO,

17 Defendants. 18 [Doc. No. 5] 19 20 Defendant Scale Social, Inc. (“Scale Social”) and Defendant Ralph D. Gramajo 21 (“Gramajo”) filed a motion to stay this matter pending arbitration. [Doc. No. 5.] Gramajo 22 also moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over himself. [Id.] For the reasons 23 outlined below, the Court DENIES Gramajo’s motion and ORDERS a telephonic status 24 conference to discuss the posture of the parties’ arbitration. 25 “When no federal statute governs personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the 26 law of the forum state.” Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 27 1998). “California’s long-arm statute is co-extensive with federal standards, so a federal 28 court may exercise personal jurisdiction if doing so comports with federal constitutional 1 due process.” Id. at 1320. A plaintiff may establish personal jurisdiction by demonstrating 2 that a court has either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction over the defendant. Doe 3 v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 The complaint alleges that Scale Social is a corporation organized in California and 5 Gramajo is a resident of Arizona. [See Compl. ¶¶ 3–4.] As a resident of Arizona, Gramajo 6 is not domiciled in the forum state, and the Court declines to exercise general jurisdiction 7 over Gramajo. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 8 (2011) (“For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is 9 the individual’s domicile.”) Therefore, Plaintiff must establish specific jurisdiction for this 10 Court to exercise jurisdiction over Gramajo. 11 In her response to Gramajo’s motion, [Doc. No. 22], Plaintiff appears to blend the 12 terminology of general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Regardless, the Court 13 construes Plaintiff’s argument as one for specific jurisdiction and finds that Plaintiff 14 presented sufficient facts in the form of affidavits to establish specific jurisdiction over 15 Gramajo. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 16 (9th Cir.1977). 17 In the Ninth Circuit, courts employ a three-part test to determine whether a 18 defendant’s contacts suffice to establish specific jurisdiction: “(1) the nonresident 19 defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities 20 in the forum by some affirmative act or conduct; (2) plaintiff’s claim must arise out of or 21 result from the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) exercise of jurisdiction must 22 be reasonable.” Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620–21 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis 23 omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs, and if they are 24 met, the burden shifts to the defendant “to set forth a compelling case that the exercise of 25 jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 26 1218, 1228 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 27 By submitting proper evidence that Gramajo is an agent and officer for Scale Social, 28 [see Doc. No. 22-3], conducted business in San Diego, [see Doc. No. 22-5], and used a 1 California bank to conduct business with Plaintiff, [see Doc. No. 22-1 at 3], Plaintiff has 2 demonstrated that Gramajo purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting 3 business activities in California. See Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 4 (9th Cir. 1988) (soliciting and conducting business in California can show purposeful 5 availment). Additionally, Plaintiff has established that her claim relates to Gramajo’s 6 business activities in California as her manager. As Ford Motor Co. makes clear, the 7 plaintiff need not establish “a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state 8 activity and the litigation” to satisfy this element. See Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth 9 Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 362 (2021). At bottom, Defendant ran the business Plaintiff 10 contracted with out of California and controlled critical parts of his business relationship 11 with Plaintiff in this state. 12 Because Plaintiff has met her burden of satisfying the first two prongs of the Ninth 13 Circuit’s test, the Court must still determine whether Gramajo “present[s] a compelling 14 case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction 15 unreasonable.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985). Here, courts 16 are instructed to balance seven factors, with no one factor being dispositive: 17 (1) the extent of the defendants’ purposeful interjection into the forum state’s affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the 18 extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants’ state; (4) the forum 19 state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s 20 interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an 21 alternative forum. 22 Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 23 2002). Gramajo provides reasons the Court should not grant specific jurisdiction in his 24 reply in support of his motion. [Doc. No. 5-4.] Gramajo argues that because Plaintiff has 25 not pled that Gramajo was in California when he made representations to Cambron, he 26 should not be subject to jurisdiction in California. Id. at 3. Gramajo also argues that Scale 27 Social availed itself to California law but Plaintiff failed to show how he personally availed 28 himself to California law. Id. The Court does not find Gramajo’s arguments persuasive 1 considering the extent to which Gramajo has interjected himself into California’s affairs 2 the minimal burden on Gramajo to defend in this forum. The Court DENIES 3 ||Gramajo’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. 4 Defendants represented that the parties have initiated arbitration. [See Doc. No. 4 at 5 ||2.] Before the Court addresses any additional pending motions, the Court orders a status 6 || update on any ongoing arbitration. The Court sets a telephonic status conference for [June 7 ||25, 2025 at 1OAM]. A minute order will provide dial-in information before the status 8 || conference. 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: June 11, 2025 (GR 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28