Miller v. HFN, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALLAN MILLER, Case No. 23-cv-00533-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
HFN, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 11 Defendants.
The motion to dismiss is granted. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the factual allegations and the parties’ arguments. HFN’s main argument is that Miller has not alleged sufficient contacts with California for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. It’s true that the scarce few allegations in the complaint about HFN officers traveling through the San Francisco International Airport and about HFN maintaining an office in San Jose (without any apparent connection to the claims at issue) do not come close to satisfying the minimum contacts test for specific personal jurisdiction. See International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). But, in addition to state law claims, Miller brings a claim under the Securities Exchange Act. As HFN acknowledges in its motion, section 27 of the Exchange Act confers personal jurisdiction over a defendant in any federal district court, “so long as [the]…