United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
“Alison Lorraine Hatheway TM/SM” has asserted
Lanham Act claims against three Connecticut realtors (Michael
Sirochman, Nicholas Mastrangelo, and Richard Greene) and one
Connecticut attorney (John S. Bennet)[1] (collectively,
“Defendants”). The complaint alleges that
Defendants mischaracterized a parcel of Connecticut property
as “bank owned” on certain real estate websites,
even though that property is actually owned by a
“common law trust” controlled by Plaintiff, and
that Defendants thereby caused Plaintiff to be locked out of
the Connecticut property when attempting to use it “for
business and or domicile.”
Now
pending before the Court are a pair of motions to dismiss,
one filed by the three realtors (Doc. 18) and the other filed
by the attorney (Doc. 19). Although Defendants have
identified an array of different reasons why the complaint
should be dismissed (including lack of service, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim),
the Court will grant both motions on the most straightforward
ground presented: lack of personal jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
I.
Complaint
Plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, has brought claims against
Defendants for false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125,
a provision of the Lanham Act. The complaint generally
alleges that Defendants have falsely advertised a property in
Deep River, Connecticut as “bank owned.” To the
extent the Court can decipher the complaint, it specifically
alleges as follows:
Plaintiff
“Alison Lorraine Hatheway is a business entity
registered in Minnesota, with a business location in
Arizona.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff operates a
“travel agency business” and is trustee of a
trust, Sonlight, that owns the Connecticut property.
(Id. at 2-3, 5.)
Defendants
Sirochman, Mastrangelo, and Greene “appear to be acting
as realtors for Coldwell Banker[].” (Id. at
2.)
Defendant
Bennet “is an individual who claims to be representing
the Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for CWALT.”
(Id.)
Bank of
New York Mellon, as Trustee for CWALT, obtained a foreclosure
judgment for the Connecticut property, but “[i]t is
legally impossible for Bank of New York to sell [the]
property.” (Id. at 2.)
Defendants
have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125 by “publicly
advertising the property is bank owned, ”
“refus[ing] to cease and desist when formally requested
to do so, ” “continuing to promote the property
for sale as bank owned, ” and “entic[ing]
potential buyers to trespass on the property.”
(Id. at 3-4.) Specifically, Bennet “filed a
petition into the Superior Court of New Britain Connecticut
naming the Bank of New York Mellon as the owner of the real
property, ” Mastrangelo “advertis[ed] the
property for sale, bank owned on auction.com, ”
Sirochman “offered the property as bank ow[n]ed in July
2018” and then “continued to advertise using the
term bank owned” after briefly “remov[ing] the
listing, ” and Greene “has continued to advertise
[the property] as bank owned, . . . continue[d] to trespass
on the property with alleged potential buyers who have been
told the property is bank owned, ” and “summoned
the police to the property to remove the security”
hired by Sonlight, “informing the police with no
documentation that it is bank owned.” (Id.)
As for
damages, Plaintiff alleges it “cannot use or domicile
at the property due to the trespass of defendants” and
“is unable to enter the property as defendants have two
lock boxes and padlocks on the property” and has
therefore experienced “commercial loss” because
it “cannot perform [its] duties and work.”
(Id. at 4-5.) It has also been forced to
“retain security” and “work with neighbors
to allow cameras on their property.” (Id.)
II.
Declarations
Defendants
have filed declarations in support of their motions to
dismiss. (Doc. 18-1 at 5-12; Doc. 19-1.) Those declarations
contain the following facts:
Sirochman
“reside[s] and work[s] in Orange, Connecticut, and
ha[s] resided in Orange since 2017 and worked in Orange,
Connecticut since 2005.” (Doc. 18-1 at 5 ¶ 3.) He
does not live, work, or transact business in Arizona.
(Id. ¶ 4.)
Mastrangelo
“ha[s] resided and worked in Orange, Connecticut since
Sept. 1970” and does not live, work, or transact
business in Arizona. (Id. at 8 ¶¶ 3-4.)
Greene
“ha[s] resided and worked in Essex, Connecticut since
1949, ” does not live or work in Arizona, and does not
transact ...