McGeachy v. Pinto Valley Mining Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Noland

    No. CV-20-00047-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2021)

    Further, this Court has federal question, rather than diversity, jurisdiction over this action, and in such instances federal alter-ego law ordinarily applies. See, e.g., McGeachy v. Pinto Valley Mining Corp., 2017 WL 3130639, *4 (D. Ariz. 2017) ("In federal-question cases such as this, district courts apply federal common law when determining whether they can exercise personal jurisdiction over a party based on alter ego theory.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, even if Arizona law did apply, it would not change the result, because "the alter ego doctrine is substantially the same under federal and Arizona law."

  2. Rodriguez v. Whole Foods Mkt. Inc.

    No. CV-18-08301-PCT-SMB (D. Ariz. Jul. 16, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Although the Defendant's motion invokes both Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), the Court need not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments because the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) jurisdictional argument is dispositive. See McGeachy v. Pinto Valley Mining Corp., No. 2:16-cv-03348 JWS, 2017 WL 3130639, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 24, 2017) ("Although the [defendants'] motion invokes both Rule 12(b)(2) and (b)(6), the court need not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) argument because the [defendants'] Rule 12(b)(2) jurisdictional argument is dispositive."). A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).