Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mulo v. Gottlieb

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 27, 2017

Jorgji Mulo, Plaintiff,
v.
Kenneth A. Gottlieb, Defendant.

          David R. Grand, Mag. Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [4]

          Judith E. Levy United States District Judge

         Before 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 injuries.

         For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.

         I. Background

         On 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. (Id.)

         At the 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.)

         After 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.)

         Defendant 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. 4.)

         II. Legal Standard

         Under 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).

         III. Analysis

         Defendant argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, is the improper venue, and that this Court is forum non conveniens. (Dkt. 4.)

         Personal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.