In Re Wireless Facilities

In Re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Derivative Litigation

Good Law
562 F. Supp. 2d 1098·2008 WL 2521748
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 2008Civil 04CV1663 JAH (NLS)California3,686 words

Opinion

Opinion

Houston, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS GHASSEMI, JACOBSEN, ANDERSON, JARVIS, HOGLUND, AND MAZILLY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION [DOC. # 77]

INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by defendants Farzad Ghassemi, Gregory Jacobsen, Scott I. Anderson, Scot Jarvis, William Hoglund, and William Ma-zilly (collectively the “nonresident defendants”). The motion has been fully briefed by the parties. After a careful consideration of the pleadings and relevant exhibits presented, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the nonresident defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rosario Pedicini filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of Wireless Facilities, Inc. (“WFI” or ‘Wireless”) on August 17, 2004, presenting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to exercise appropriate oversight of Wireless and unlawful insider trading against various officers and directors of Wireless. Plaintiff Michael Roth filed a similar complaint on September 9, 2004. On February 7, 2005, this Court consolidated the two complaints. See Doc. #…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.