Shaw v. Garcia

Background

Laurence Jay Shaw, representing himself, filed an application for a temporary restraining order. He alleges that Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia and Veronica Rosibel Manzano Garcia were previously employees of his company in Guatemala; that in October 2023 they took online and physical assets from the company; and that they began operating Knightsbridge Sleep Solutions LLC, which Shaw describes as a counterfeit company. The opinion states that the two individuals reside in Guatemala and that Knightsbridge is a New Mexico limited liability company.

The court identified service of process and personal jurisdiction as threshold issues. The court had previously directed Shaw to serve the individual defendants under the Inter-American Service Convention and Additional Protocol and had set a January 16, 2025 deadline. Shaw filed two motions asking the court to issue or sign forms used in the service process in Guatemala. He confirmed that he would obtain certified Spanish translations and transmit the materials to the relevant service contractor for delivery to the Guatemalan Central Authority.

Service and filings for Knightsbridge

The court granted the two motions for letters rogatory and directed the clerk to affix the court’s signature and seal to the attached forms. The court extended Shaw’s deadline to serve the individual defendants to March 28, 2025. By that date, Shaw must file a declaration and supporting proof confirming service under the convention or file a status report describing his service efforts and the additional time he needs.

The court stated that it would continue holding the temporary-restraining-order application in abeyance until the defendants were properly served. Shaw had filed certificates of service concerning Knightsbridge, which had not appeared. The court said it would evaluate the sufficiency of service if default were entered and Shaw later sought default judgment.

Edwin Dario Manzano Garcia had filed responses on behalf of Knightsbridge. The court had previously warned him that a self-represented litigant could not represent another party. Because Knightsbridge, as a limited liability company, could appear only through an attorney, the court struck Docket Nos. 37, 40, and 43 and directed the clerk to remove them from the docket.

Personal jurisdiction

The court expressed serious questions about whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant, even if service were proper. It stated that Shaw’s location in the Northern District of California was not by itself enough to establish jurisdiction over the defendants, and that Shaw bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists. The complaint did not allege ties between Garcia or the other defendants and California. It alleged that the individual defendants reside in Guatemala and that Knightsbridge is a New Mexico limited liability company; the address used to serve Knightsbridge was also in New Mexico.

The court ordered Shaw to show cause—meaning explain why the court should not take a specified action—why the case should not be dismissed as to Garcia for lack of personal jurisdiction. Shaw’s response was limited to ten pages and due January 10, 2025. The court also suggested that Shaw consider whether there was a viable legal basis for jurisdiction over the other defendants before incurring further expenses to serve them or seek default judgment.

Disposition

The court granted the motions for letters rogatory, extended the service deadline, struck the specified filings, and ordered Shaw to show cause regarding dismissal as to Garcia for lack of personal jurisdiction. The order did not decide the merits of Shaw’s underlying allegations or his temporary-restraining-order application.