GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-07628
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In GS Holistic v. Xotic Smokes, Judge Cousins questioned jurisdiction over Mulham Alhamdani and ordered a response before possible dismissal.
GS Holistic must respond regarding whether Mulham Alhamdani should remain in the case. The order directly concerns the court’s personal jurisdiction over Mulham; it does not rule on the other defendants.
What happened
In GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc, GS Holistic sought default judgment against several defendants, including Mulham Alhamdani.
The court questioned whether it had personal jurisdiction—the legal power to decide a case involving a particular defendant—over Mulham because GS consistently served him at an Ohio address and had not shown that he was subject to California’s jurisdiction.
The court ordered GS Holistic to explain by March 15, 2024, why Mulham should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins stated that dismissal would be recommended if GS did not respond.
The detailed version
- GS Holistic, LLC v. Xotic Smokes Inc · No. 4:22-cv-07628
- Jeffrey White
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
GS Holistic moved for default judgment against Xotic Smokes Inc, Murad Alhamdani, Mulham Alhamdani, Hashem Alhamdani, and Entesar Dargan.
Personal Jurisdiction
The court stated that it did not find personal jurisdiction over Mulham Alhamdani. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to decide a case involving a particular defendant. GS had consistently served Mulham at an Ohio address, but its complaint and motion for default judgment did not explain that address. The court found GS’s contention that Mulham was domiciled in California—and therefore subject to the court’s general personal jurisdiction—suspect because Mulham was the only defendant not served at a California address. The court also stated that GS had not shown that Mulham was subject to specific personal jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered GS Holistic to show cause in writing by March 15, 2024, why it should not recommend dismissing Mulham Alhamdani for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court stated that if GS failed to respond, it would recommend dismissing Mulham for that reason. The order did not itself dismiss Mulham or rule on GS Holistic’s motion for default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.