Opinion
24-cv-04148-CRB
11-19-2024
EPAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHAN VOLCKAERTS, et al., Defendants.
JUDGMENT
CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 4, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See MTD Order (dkt. 42). The Court dismissed the claims against Defendants without prejudice, and when Plaintiff did not amend its complaint within 30 days, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be terminated. See OSC (dkt. 43).
Plaintiff responded and requests two months to file an amended complaint while it pursues parallel litigation in the Netherlands. See OSC Response (dkt. 44) at 2. Plaintiff asserts that “further developments in the Netherlands actions may bear directly on the scope of this dispute.” Id. But Plaintiff does not explain how any developments would affect the Court's jurisdictional ruling. See MTD Order at 5-7 (Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants targeted California as a state). The most Plaintiff does is baldly assert that Defendants' “records”-that have not yet been identified and may not even exist-might “enable [Plaintiff] to prepare a more specific and detailed pleading.” OSC Response at 2. That is too speculative and conclusory to justify dragging this litigation on. See Contreras v. Broomfield, No. 19-cv-1523-JLT, 2024 WL 86604, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024) (denying leave to amend based on speculation about potential impacts of future case law).
The Court hereby enters judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.