Gardner

BACKGROUND

21 I detailed plaintiffs’ allegations in my December 2, 2019 Order granting in part and 22 denying in part StarKist’s motion to dismiss and granting Dongwon’s motion to dismiss with 23 leave to amend. See Gardner v. Starkist Co., 418 F. Supp. 3d 443, 449-54 (N.D. Cal. 2019) 24 (hereinafter “Gardner I”). I incorporate that discussion by reference here. 25 Plaintiffs adequately alleged their state law fraud claims in the First Amended Complaint 26 (“FAC”), but I gave them leave to amend their RICO claim as well as their alter ego and agency 27 theories as to Dongwon. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to that Order, 1 dropping their RICO claim. See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) [Dkt. No. 75]. StarKist 2 again moves to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim and Dongwon again moves to dismiss 3 for lack of personal jurisdiction. See StarKist Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 4 (“StarKist MTD”) [Dkt. No. 81]; Dongwon Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint 5 (“Dongwon MTD”) [Dkt. No. 82]. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 I. RULE 12(B)(6): MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 8 …