Pate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PATE, Case No. 21-cv-07718-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS AND RESOLVING OTHER,

MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

MARTINE PATE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 14, 19, 21 Defendants.

John Pate alleges that Martine and Robert Pate swindled him out of an interest in Pate Development LLC, a Florida-based company, and never compensated him for his share in certain Florida real estate. Martine and Robert have moved to dismiss John’s case, asserting that this California-based federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. See Dkt. 14. Martine and Robert are correct, as explained below, and their motion is granted.1 * * * Even though a plaintiff may prefer to litigate in his home state, he can’t do so if the parties he wishes to sue don’t have sufficient contacts there. This is a core precept of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is known as the personal-jurisdiction requirement. If a court doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, it cannot consider the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. See generally Walden v. Fiore, 571…