Mandel

Mandel v. Hafermann

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 2, 20203:20-cv-03668California3,072 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Todd Mandel’s (“Mr. Mandel” or “Plaintiff”) action was removed to federal court on August 9, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (ECF No. 2.) In his Amended Complaint, Mr. Mandel states causes of action against his ex-wife and business partner, Ms. Hafermann, Ms. Hafermann’s husband, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Hafermann’s personal assistant, Ms.

1 Also pending, although not before this court, is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 11) and Defendant Paul Rothenberg and Rothenberg P.C.’s (the “Rothenberg Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) Ostovich, and Attorney Paul Rothenberg and Rothenberg P.C., who previously acted as legal counsel to Mr. Mandel, Ms. Hafermann and entities associated with their business.2 (ECF No. 2- 1 at ¶¶ 32-34.) In their Motion, Defendants argue that venue should be transferred from Utah to the

Northern District of California “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice”. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff is a resident of “either Park City, Utah or Nashville, Tennessee” and Defendants are residents of the State of California with Ms.…

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.