Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02973-REB-MEH
05-20-2014
JON A. GOODWIN, an individual, directly and derivatively in the right of and for the benefit of Barra Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. MARCIA ANN BRUGGEMAN-HATCH, an individual, et al. Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#254], filed April 24, 2014. No objections having been filed to the recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).
"[#254]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Morales-Fernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, I find and conclude that recommendation should be approved and adopted. I concur with the magistrate judge's conclusion that nothing in the complaint plausibly alleges a valid basis for this court to assume either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the City of Redwood City, California, in this forum.
The magistrate judge further recommends denying plaintiff's request for leave to amend his complaint to attempt to assert valid claims against the City, noting that plaintiff neither argues nor demonstrates that he could plead additional facts that might establish personal jurisdiction over this defendant. Not only do I concur with the recommendation in this respect, I also note that the request - contained within his response to the motion to dismiss - also is procedurally improper. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) ("A motion shall not be included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate document.").
--------
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#254], filed January 24, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the City of Redwood City's Motion To Dismiss [#29], filed December 12, 2013, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART as follows;
a. That the motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the City of Redwood City, California, on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction in this forum; and
b. That in all other respects, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT;
4. That plaintiff's claims against the City of Redwood City, California, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction in this forum;
5. That at the time judgment enters, judgment without prejudice SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, City of Redwood City, California, against plaintiff, Jon A. Goodwin, on all claims for relief and causes of action asserted against this defendant herein; and
6. That defendant, City of Redwood City, California, is DROPPED as a named party to this action, and the case caption AMENDED accordingly.
Dated May 20, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
__________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge