MATTHEW NIEHAUS, ET AL vs. EAGLE FOOTBALL HOLDINGS LIMITED, ET AL

3) MOTION - QUASH 4) MOTION - QUASH

There are currently four separate motions to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction before the Court brought by (1) James Dinan and Alexander Knaster; (2) Mark Affolter and James Miller; (3) Yongmee Kang; and (4) John Textor and Frank Patterson.1

In the briefing on the motions, Plaintiffs request that if the Court is inclined to grant the motions to quash it should instead continue the hearing for a period of 90 days to permit limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction. A “plaintiff attempting to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery of the jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its burden of proof.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127.) This court has discretion to continue a hearing on a motion to quash to allow such discovery where the plaintiff demonstrates that “discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (Ibid.)

Having reviewed the declarations and memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe further discovery may lead to evidence sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Therefore the Court exercises its discretion and continues the hearing on all four motions to quash for 90 days to allow Plaintiffs to pursue jurisdictional discovery.

1 On July 7, 2026, the Court entered a stipulation and order scheduling the first three motions to be heard on July 28, 2026 and permitting Plaintiffs to file a single opposition to all three motions. This hearing date was later continued to August 14, 2026. A fourth motion, brought by Textor and Patterson, was also set for hearing on this date. Plaintiffs have filed a separate opposition to Textor and Patterson’s motion.

The Court does not rule on the motion filed by Frank Patterson as Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss him as a defendant.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for August, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1605267272?pwd=908CbP6TV2mhCAyai1nzo6lyz2dKaw.1 Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935