HELPING HANDS FOR DIGNITY COALITION v. GURKA

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HELPING HANDS FOR DIGNITY
COALITION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY GURKA,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-06750-WHO
ORDER REGARDING PERSONAL
JURISDICTION
At the Case Management Conference on November 18, 2025, I told the parties that I did
not see how this court has jurisdiction: plaintiff is a Colorado corporation, defendant is a resident
of Florida, and the only contact with California is that third party YouTube processed takedown
notices here. Dkt. No. 12. I ordered that each side submit a five-page brief explaining their
jurisdictional theories. The parties have done so. Dkt. Nos. 13, 14.
Putting aside the question of whether venue was proper in this District given the DMCA
notices and counternotices submitted to YouTube, Inc. (which is located in this District), plaintiff
has argued that defendant waived its jurisdictional argument by filing an Answer. In that Answer,
defendant denied that personal jurisdiction could be exercised by this Court. Compare Complaint
¶ 13 (asserting Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant given alleged purposeful direction
of conduct to California) with Answer ¶ 13 (“Deny, Defendant lives in Florida and has no
minimum contacts with California.”). That is sufficient, as long as defendant promptly moves to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Lechoslaw v. Bank of Am., N.A., 618 F.3d 49,
Case 4:26-cv-00024-MJF Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
56 (1st Cir. 2010) (no waiver where defendant “chose to file an answer, its first responsive
pleading in this case, before it filed a Rule 12 motion. There is nothing the matter with
[defendant’s] chosen order of filings given that its answer included the personal jurisdiction
defense.”).1
If defendant wishes to contest personal jurisdiction, within twenty (20) days of the date of
this Order, he shall file a motion to dismiss back on lack of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2025
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
1 Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended on denial of
reh'g and reh'g en banc (June 15, 1998) and relied on by plaintiff, does not establish that a
defendant waives the ability to challenge to personal jurisdiction when the defense in asserted in
an answer. Instead, that case held only that “the minimum requirements of Rule 12 are satisfied
when a defendant raises the issue of personal jurisdiction in a timely motion to dismiss.”
Nonetheless, to extinguish any doubt, I GRANT defendant the permission to file a motion under
Rule 12, but only to contest personal jurisdiction.
Case 4:26-cv-00024-MJF Document 15 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2