United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand, Mag. Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
E. Levy United States District Judge
the Court is defendant Kenneth A. Gottlieb's motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 4) the complaint filed by plaintiff Jorgji
Mulo, who alleges defendant was negligent in driving his
motor vehicle, thereby causing plaintiff to sustain severe
reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.
November 19, 2015, plaintiff, a resident of Sterling Heights,
Michigan, was driving his truck east on SR 613 in Allen
Township, Hancock County, Ohio. (Dkt. 1 at 2.) That same day,
defendant, a resident of Monroe, Ohio, was driving his Toyota
Corolla on TR 232 in Allen Township, Hancock County, Ohio.
intersection of SR 613 and TR 232, defendant allegedly failed
to stop at a stop sign and collided with plaintiff's
truck. (Dkt. 1 at 2.)
the incident, plaintiff filed this complaint, alleging
defendant was negligent in failing to operate his motor
vehicle with due care and driving through a stop sign without
stopping or giving warning to other drivers. (Dkt. 1 at 2-3.)
As a result of defendant's alleged negligence, plaintiff
sustained serious physical injuries, disfigurement, emotional
distress and anxiety, and loss of earnings and earnings
capacity. (Id. at 4.)
filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over defendant, is the improper venue, and is
forum non conveniens. (See generally Dkt.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), “the party seeking to establish
the existence of personal jurisdiction bears the burden to
establish such jurisdiction.” Beydoun v. Wataniya
Restaurants Holding, Q.S.C., 768 F.3d 499, 504 (6th Cir.
2014). “To defeat [a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff] need only make a
prima facie showing of jurisdiction.”
Id. But when a motion to dismiss has been filed,
“plaintiff may not stand on his pleadings but must, by
affidavit or otherwise, set forth specific facts showing that
the court has jurisdiction.” Theunissen v.
Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1458 (6th Cir. 1991). And when
a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is
filed but no evidentiary hearing is held, “the court
must consider the pleadings and affidavits in a light most
favorable to the [nonmoving party-here, plaintiffs].”
Id. (brackets in original).
argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, is the improper
venue, and that this Court is forum non conveniens.