Case Information
*1 Case 8:07-cv-00794-AG-AN Document 151 Filed 01/09/09 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1224
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 07-0794 AG (ANx) Date January 9, 2009 Title NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al.
Present: The ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Honorable
Lisa Bredahl None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION AND NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. F ED . R. C IV . P. 78. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing on this matter scheduled for January 12, 2009.
Defendants HSBC Finance Corporation and National City Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (collectively the “Motions”). Plaintiff National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“Plaintiff”) states that it does not oppose the Motions. The Court GRANTS the Motions. BACKGROUND
In this section, the Court assumes as true the facts as stated in the Motions. Defendant HSBC is a corporation that has never taken a mortgage application or made a mortgage loan. (HSBC Mot. 1:9-10.) Defendant National City is a holding company that does not make mortgage loans or otherwise conduct mortgage-related business. (National City Mot. 1:2-5.) Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, among others, for violations CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
Case 8:07-cv-00794-AG-AN Document 151 Filed 01/09/09 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1225
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 07-0794 AG (ANx) Date January 9, 2009 Title NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, et al.
of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Defendants filed the Motions. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motions. (Opp’n 1:3-17.) In fact, Plaintiff states that Defendants “may not be the particular HSBC and National City entities which are engaged in the mortgage loan business that is the subject of this action.” ( Id. 1:4-6.) Thus, Plaintiff has “no opposition to the dismissal of these defendants.” ( Id. 1:10-11.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may bring a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(2). The defendant is the moving party, but the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of facts establishing personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink , 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.’” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)).
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that they do not take mortgage applications or make mortgage loans. Plaintiff acknowledges that it erroneously named Defendants in this lawsuit. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
DISPOSITION
The Court GRANTS the Motions.
: 0 Initials of Preparer lmb CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2