Tom Lehman v. Medialab AI, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 15, 20242:23-cv-09055California6,157 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. 26 (“Mot.’). On October 26, 2023, plaintiff Tom Lehman filed a complaint against defendants Medialab AI, Inc. (“Medialab”), Otin Holdings, LLC (“Otin Holdings”), Michael Heyward (“Heyward”), and Does 1-10 (collectively “defendants”’) alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) tortious interference with contract; and (3) fraud. Dkt. 3-1 (“Compl.’). On January 15, 2024, Heyward and Medialab filed the instant motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay this action. Dkt. 26 (“Mot.”). On February 5, 2024, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 31-2 (“Opp.”). On February 12, 2024, the moving defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 38 (“Reply”). On February 26, 2024, the Court reserved judgment on defendants’ motion to dismiss pending the completion of jurisdictional discovery. On March 25, 2024, the Court held a status conference. Dkt. 45. At the status conference, the parties agreed that Otin Holdings’ members are California residents. On the same day, defendant Otin Holdings filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. 44. On April 15, 2024, the Court held a hearing. …

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.