United States District Court, D. Columbia.
Decided October 7, 2014.
Sherlene Stevens, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC USA.
For Board of Education of Kent County, Defendant: Edmund J. O'Meally, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Chantelle M. Custodio, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, MD USA.
Royce C. Lamberth, J.
Before the Court is defendant's Motion to Dismiss, May 23, 2014, ECF No. 1-4. Upon consideration of defendant's motion, plaintiff's opposition, ECF No. 5, defendant's reply, ECF No. 7, applicable law, and the record in this case, the Court will GRANT defendant's motion to dismiss and will DISMISS plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff Sherlene Stevens (" Stevens" ) filed the instant action against the Board of Education of Kent County (" the Board" ) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on April 28, 2014. Compl. While plaintiff's claim is not entirely clear from the pleadings, she explicitly alleges a breach of contract and requests damages of $4.5 million. Id. The Board removed the action to this Court. ECF No. 1. The Board now argues that this Court must dismiss her Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and under principles of sovereign immunity as dictated by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2; Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Response to Mot. Dismiss 3-4.
II. Personal Jurisdiction
A. Legal Standard
On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1091, 381 U.S.App.D.C. 383 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The " [p]laintiff must allege specific facts on which personal jurisdiction can be based; it cannot rely on conclusory allegations." Moore v. Motz, 437 F.Supp.2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2006) (citations omitted).
To assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident ...