EPAC Technologies, Inc. v. Volckaerts ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EPAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 24-cv-04148-CRB 9 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT 10 v. 11 JOHAN VOLCKAERTS, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 On October 4, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of 14 personal jurisdiction. See MTD Order (dkt. 42). The Court dismissed the claims against 15 Defendants without prejudice, and when Plaintiff did not amend its complaint within 30 16 days, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be terminated. 17 See OSC (dkt. 43). 18 Plaintiff responded and requests two months to file an amended complaint while it 19 pursues parallel litigation in the Netherlands. See OSC Response (dkt. 44) at 2. Plaintiff 20 asserts that “further developments in the Netherlands actions may bear directly on the 21 scope of this dispute.” Id. But Plaintiff does not explain how any developments would 22 affect the Court’s jurisdictional ruling. See MTD Order at 5–7 (Plaintiff did not allege that 23 Defendants targeted California as a state). The most Plaintiff does is baldly assert that 24 Defendants’ “records”—that have not yet been identified and may not even exist—might 25 “enable [Plaintiff] to prepare a more specific and detailed pleading.” OSC Response at 2. 26 That is too speculative and conclusory to justify dragging this litigation on. See Contreras 27 v. Broomfield, No. 19-cv-1523-JLT, 2024 WL 86604, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2024) 1 The Court hereby enters judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendants. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 19, 2024 CHARLES R. BREYER 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27