Miller v. Travel Guard Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMIKA MILLER, et al., Case No. 21-cv-09751-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. COMPEL ARBITRATION AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20,

1. AIG is dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The complaint has not alleged that the Court has general jurisdiction over the company: AIG is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York. And there are no allegations that AIG took any action in or directed any action to the state of California relating to the plaintiffs’ claims. But if discovery reveals new facts pertinent to this analysis, the plaintiffs may move to re-join AIG as a defendant in the case. The remaining defendants contend that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring this case in federal court. But that argument is foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent. A customer suffers an Article III injury when they would have paid less for a product than they did if they had not been misled about the nature of the…