Hoof v. Ayahuasca Foundation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB
LESLIE HOOF a/k/a LESLIE MANNING,
Plaintiff,
v.
AYAHUASCA FOUNDATION,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [Docket No. 31].
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations 1
Plaintiff Leslie Hoof (also known as Leslie Manning) is a Colorado citizen.
Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1. Defendant Ayahuasca Foundation is a foreign company that
regularly conducts business throughout the United States, including but not limited to
the marketing, advertisement, and sale of retreats and wellness workshops. Id., ¶ 2.
Defendant’s primary address is in Peru. Id. Defendant also does business under other
names, including as the Ayahuasca Association. Id.
1 Because of the Clerk of Court’s entry of default against defendant, see Docket
No. 30, the factual allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, Docket No. 1, are deemed
admitted. See Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 327 F.3d 1115, 1125 (10th Cir. 2003).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 14

2
On or about September 25, 2021, plaintiff was on defendant’s property located in
Peru. Id. at 2, ¶ 9. She was walking down the hall from her room on the second floor
when she slipped and fell on oil that had been left on the floor. Id., ¶ 10. She severely
fractured her wrist and arm and suffered other injuries. Id. at 3, ¶ 11. The conditions
leading to the fall were present for a sufficient time that defendant knew or should have
known of the dangerous condition, and defendant did not promptly correct the condition
or warn plaintiff. Id., ¶ 13.
Defendant was the landowner of the subject premises. Id., ¶ 16. Defendant was
responsible for the maintenance and condition of the property. Id. at 2, ¶ 6. Plaintiff
was a paying guest of defendant at a wellness retreat/workshop program. Id., ¶ 9.
Plaintiff booked her spot in the program while in Colorado. Id.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on August 31, 2023. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff asserts a
claim against defendant for premises liability. Id. at 3-4, ¶¶ 15-20.
On September 5, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show
cause raising questions as to subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 4. The
magistrate judge found that complete diversity of citizenship existed because plaintiff
stated that she was a Colorado citizen and alleged that defendant was a foreign
corporation with its principal place of business in Peru. Id. at 2. The magistrate judge
noted, however, that plaintiff failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeded
$75,000. Id. at 2-3. The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Plaintiff
responded by providing evidence of medical bills and lost wages and alleging various
non-economic injuries. Docket No. 5. These damages exceed $75,000. See id.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 14

3
Based on those representations, the magistrate judge discharged the order to show
cause. Docket No. 6.
On December 30, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff served
defendant on December 17, 2024. Docket No. 28. Defendant has not made an
appearance in this action. On March 24, 2025, the Clerk of the Court entered default
against defendant. Docket No. 30. On April 14, 2025, plaintiff filed the motion for
default judgment. Docket No. 31.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In order to obtain a judgment by default, a party must follow the two-step process
described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. First, the party must seek an entry of default from the
Clerk of the Court under Rule 55(a). Second, after default has been entered by the
Clerk, the party must seek judgment under the strictures of Rule 55(b). See Williams v.
Smithson, 57 F.3d 1081, 1995 WL 365988, at *1 (10th Cir. June 20, 1995) (unpublished
table decision) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 276 (2d Cir. 1981)).
The decision to enter default judgment is “committed to the district court's sound
discretion.” Olcott, 327 F.3d at 1124 (citation omitted). In exercising that discretion, the
Court considers that “[s]trong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits.” In re
Rains, 946 F.2d 731, 732 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotation and citations omitted). “The
default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary
process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” Id. It serves to
protect a plaintiff against “interminable delay and continued uncertainty as to his
rights.” Id. at 733. When “ruling on a motion for default judgment, the court may rely on
detailed affidavits or documentary evidence to determine the appropriate sum for the
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 14

4
default judgment.” Seme v. E&H Prof'l Sec. Co., Inc., No. 08-cv-01569-RPM-KMT,
2010 WL 1553786, at *11 (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2010).
A party may not simply sit out the litigation without consequence. See Cessna
Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry Contracting, Inc., 715 F.2d 1442, 1444-45 (10th Cir.
1983) (“a workable system of justice requires that litigants not be free to appear at their
pleasure. We therefore must hold parties and their attorneys to a reasonably high
standard of diligence in observing the courts’ rules of procedure. The threat of
judgment by default serves as an incentive to meet this standard.”) (internal citation
omitted). One such consequence is that, upon the entry of default against a defendant,
the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted. See 10A Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2688.1 (4th ed., 2023
rev.). “Even after default, however, it remains for the court to consider whether the
unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does
not admit conclusions of law.” Id. A court need not accept conclusory
allegations. Moffett v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 291 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir.
2002). Although “[s]pecific facts are not necessary” in order to state a claim, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), the well-pleaded facts must “permit the court to infer more than
the mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (quotations and alterations omitted). Thus, even though modern rules of
pleading are somewhat forgiving, “a complaint still must contain either direct or
inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 14

5
recovery under some viable legal theory.” Bryson v. Gonzales, 534 F.3d 1282, 1286
(10th Cir. 2008) (quotation and citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is brief and assumes that the Court will set
an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of damages. See Docket No. 31 at 1-2.
However, before reaching the issue of damages, the Court must assess whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Should the Court be satisfied of its jurisdiction, it must also consider whether the
allegations in the complaint, accepted as true, entitle plaintiff to relief. For the reasons
discussed below, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction, but lacks
personal jurisdiction over defendant. Thus, the Court will not reach the merits of
plaintiff’s claim or the issue of damages. Since plaintiff indicates that she seeks an
evidentiary hearing only on the issue of damages, and not on the issue of personal
jurisdiction, see id., the Court will deny the request for an evidentiary hearing.
A. Jurisdiction
Before addressing the merits of plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the Court
must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case and personal
jurisdiction over defendant. See Dennis Garberg & Assocs., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int'l
Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 772 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that “a district court must determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the defendant before entering judgment by default
against a party who has not appeared in the case”).
1. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 confers federal district courts with
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 14

6
jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff is a Colorado citizen. Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 1.
Defendant is a foreign corporation with a primary address in Peru. Id., ¶ 2. 2 Thus,
there is a complete diversity of citizenship. The Court also finds that, considering the
information plaintiff submitted about her damages, see Docket No. 5, the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Thus, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction.
2. 	Personal Jurisdiction
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Rambo v. Am. S.
Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1417 (10th Cir. 1988); XMission, L.C. v. Fluent LLC, 955 F.3d
833, 839 (10th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff can satisfy her burden by making a prima
facie showing. Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1070
(10th Cir. 2008). A court will accept the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true in
determining whether plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction
2 On the first page of the complaint, plaintiff affirmatively states that defendant is
a foreign corporation with a primary address in Peru. Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2. On the
second page of the complaint, plaintiff states that defendant is “upon information and
belief a foreign corporation.” Id. at 2, ¶ 3. The Court has previously held that pleadings
of citizenship based upon “information and belief” indicate a lack of affirmative
knowledge of a defendant’s citizenship and are thus insufficient to establish subject
matter jurisdiction. See United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Creager, No. 22-cv-02052-PAB,
2023 WL 2375088, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2023). Even if, however, plaintiff’s use of the
term “information and belief” in its second reference to defendant’s citizenship
undermines her first, more-definitive reference, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction. This is because, as part of her efforts to establish service of process,
plaintiff submitted a copy of an email in which Carlos Tanner, who describes himself as
the “director” of Ayahuasca Foundation, states that Ayahuasca Foundation is a
“Peruvian non-profit and only operate[s] in Peru.” See Docket No. 27-1 at 1-2. The
Court finds that, given the circumstances of the case, this information is sufficient to
establish that defendant is a citizen of Peru.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 14

7
exists. AST Sports Sci., Inc. v. CLF Distrib. Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1057 (10th Cir. 2008).
However, “[c]onclusory allegations as to the transaction of business, devoid of further
factual support, are insufficient to establish a good faith basis for personal jurisdiction
over a defendant.” Ryuunosuke Takeshige v. Rich Board, LLC, No. 20-cv-1262-WJM-
KLM, 2021 WL 2351036, at *2 (D. Colo. June 9, 2021) (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman,
571 U.S. 117 (2014)). If the presence or absence of personal jurisdiction
can be established by reference to the complaint, the court need not look further. AST
Sports Sci., Inc., 514 F.3d, at 1057. The plaintiff, however, may also make this prima
facie showing by putting forth evidence that, if proven to be true, would support
jurisdiction over the defendant. Id.
“In determining whether a federal court has personal jurisdiction over a
defendant, the court must determine (1) whether the applicable statute potentially
confers jurisdiction by authorizing service of process on the defendant and (2) whether
the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d
1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Peay v. BellSouth Med. Assistance Plan, 205 F.3d
1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000)). The Colorado long-arm statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-
124, has been construed to extend jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by the
Constitution, so the jurisdictional analysis here reduces to a single inquiry of whether
jurisdiction offends due process. See Dudnikov, 514 F.3d at 1070; Archangel Diamond
Corp. v. Lukoil, 123 P.3d 1187, 1193 (Colo. 2005). Personal jurisdiction comports with
due process where a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state and where
those contacts are such that assuming jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 14

8
(1945). Minimum contacts may be established under the doctrines of general
jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction. Howarth v. TCER, LLC, 20-cv-03230-PAB-KMT,
2021 WL 4775270, at *2 (D. Colo. Oct. 13, 2021). 3
General jurisdiction extends to “any and all claims” brought against a defendant,
including claims that have no relation to the forum state. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana
Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021) (citation omitted). A court may exercise
general jurisdiction only when a defendant is “essentially at home” in the state. Id. For
corporations, “the place of incorporation and principal place of
business are ‘paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.’” Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at
137 (citation omitted); see also Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 358-59. Plaintiff states that
defendant is a Peruvian entity and states no facts that would suggest that defendant is
“essentially at home” in Colorado. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant is not
subject to general jurisdiction in Colorado.
Specific jurisdiction is present only if the lawsuit “aris[es] out of or relat[es] to the
defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 582
U.S. 255, 262 (2017). That is, “[a] plaintiff's injury must ‘arise out of or relate to’ the
defendant's forum contacts.” Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo
3 Proper service is also a jurisdictional prerequisite to litigation. Jenkins v. City of
Topeka, 136 F.3d 1274, 1275 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Effectuation of service is a precondition
to suit.”). Without proper service, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Okla. Radio Assocs. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 969 F.2d 940, 943 (10th Cir. 1992).
The docket sheet reflects the various efforts plaintiff took to serve defendant. See
Docket No. 26 at 1-3 (recounting the history of service attempts; see also Docket No.
27. The magistrate judge ultimately found that plaintiff had served defendant by email.
Docket No. 28. The Court does not assess the adequacy of service here because, for
the reasons discussed below, it finds that, regardless of service, it lacks personal
jurisdiction over defendant.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 14

9
Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., 970 F.3d 1269, 1284 (10th Cir.
2020) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–73 (1985)). In other
words, “there must be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy,
principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is
therefore subject to the State's regulation.’” Bristol-Myers, 582 U.S. at
262 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919
(2011)).
The specific jurisdiction analysis is two-fold. First, a court must determine
whether a defendant has such minimum contacts with Colorado that the defendant
“should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” here. World-Wide Volkswagen
Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Within this inquiry, the court must
determine whether the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the
forum, Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, and whether plaintiff's claim arises out of or results
from “actions by . . . defendant . . . that create a substantial connection with the forum
State.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (internal
quotations omitted). “The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not
‘random, isolated, or fortuitous.’” Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359 (quoting Keeton v.
Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984)). “They must show that the defendant
deliberately ‘reached out beyond’ its home – by, for example, ‘exploi[ting] a market’ in
the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there.” Id. (citation
omitted). Second, if a defendant’s actions create sufficient minimum contacts, the court
must consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant offends
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Asahi, 480 U.S. at 105. The
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 14

10
court considers several factors as part of this analysis, including: (1) the burden on the
defendant; (2) the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff’s
interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system’s
interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared
interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Burger King,
471 U.S. at 477.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment does not explain why she believes the
Court has specific jurisdiction over defendant. Her complaint offers only two brief
allegations related to the issue of specific jurisdiction. First, plaintiff alleges that “[a]t all
pertinent times, Defendant advertised, marketed and solicited business in Colorado
from Plaintiff and others, including the sale of retreats/workshops.” Docket No. 1 at 2,
¶ 8. Second, plaintiff alleges that she was “a paying guest of the Defendant through the
aforementioned retreat/workshop program, which Plaintiff purchased while in the State
of Colorado.” Id., ¶ 9.
The general allegation that defendant advertised, marketed, and solicited
business in Colorado is “vague and conclusory, and does not set forth a colorable basis
for the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Ryuunosuke Takeshige, 2021 WL
2351036, at *2. Therefore, the only basis for jurisdiction supported by facts is that
plaintiff booked her Peruvian retreat while in Colorado. The Court understands plaintiff
to mean that she made her booking over the internet while in Colorado.
Courts are divided on whether an out-of-state defendant is subject to specific
jurisdiction for selling products via an online website to consumers in a specific state.
See, e.g., Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1095 (9th Cir. 2023)
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 14

11
(holding that selling products on Amazon to Arizona residents created sufficient
connections to Arizona for the exercise of personal jurisdiction); NBA Props., Inc. v.
HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022) (holding that selling an infringing product on
Amazon and shipping it to an Illinois address created sufficient connections to Illinois for
the exercise of personal jurisdiction); Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616
F.3d 158, 171-72 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that selling a product online to New York
buyers created sufficient connections to New York for the exercise of personal
jurisdiction); Bros. & Sisters in Christ, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc., 42 F.4th 948, 953 (8th Cir.
2022) (holding that selling a product online to a Missouri consumer was not sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction); Admar Int’l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783 (5th
Cir. 2021) (holding that selling a product online to Louisiana residents was not sufficient
to establish personal jurisdiction when the website did not specifically target Louisiana).
The Ninth, Seventh, and Second Circuits have found that selling a product online can
be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, while the Eighth and Fifth Circuits have
found that something more than mere online sales is required.
The Tenth Circuit has not yet determined whether specific jurisdiction can be
established through online sales. However, courts in this District have found that, in
cases involving online sales, “minimum contacts can be established on the basis of the
substantial or regular flow of sales from a non-resident company to residents of the
forum state.” SEBO Am., LLC v. Red Vacuums LLC, No. 23-cv-0116-WJM-
SBP, 2024 WL 964816, at *3-4 (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2024) (collecting cases). For example,
in Otter Prods., LLC v. Big Birds, LLC, No. 19-cv-00626-DME-KLM, 2019 WL
13102793, at *1-2 (D. Colo. Aug. 9, 2019), the court found that plaintiff sufficiently
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 14

12
alleged that defendants had minimum contacts in Colorado based on allegations that (1)
defendants “have made substantial and regular sales of infringing products bearing
Plaintiffs’ trademarks to Colorado,” including “at least fifty such sales” occurring over a
three month period; and (2) defendants “continue to regularly sell a high volume of other
infringing products bearing Plaintiffs’ trademarks into Colorado.” (internal alterations
omitted). In Otter Prod., LLC v. Phone Rehab, LLC, No. 19-cv-00206-RM-MEH,
2019 WL 4736462, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, 2019 WL 6888276 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2019), the court found that plaintiffs
established specific personal jurisdiction over defendants based on allegations that
defendants sold and shipped 341 infringing products to Colorado consumers via
Amazon for over a year, in addition to shipping over 1,000 other products
to Colorado during the same time period.
By contrast, in Red Vacuums, the court found that SEBO failed to establish that
defendant had sufficient minimum contacts in Colorado because SEBO's evidence only
showed that defendant received seven online orders from consumers in Colorado,
including six orders from plaintiff's counsel, and defendant only shipped one order
to Colorado. Red Vacuums, 2024 WL 964816, at *5. The court found that “seven
orders” was distinguishable from the “high volume” of sales in Big Birds and Phone
Rehab. Id. Similarly, in SEBO Am., LLC v. Mega Mart Warehouse LLC, No. 22-cv-
02898-PAB-KAS, 2024 WL 1257534, at *4-6 (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2025), the Court found
that four orders placed on Amazon were insufficient to establish minimum contacts with
Colorado.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 12 of 14

13
Plaintiff alleges, at most, a single sale of a service to a Colorado consumer.
Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 9. Just as the seven orders were insufficient to establish minimum
contacts in Red Vacuums, the single order here is insufficient to establish minimum
contacts. See Red Vacuums, 2024 WL 964816, at *5. Moreover, the facts of this case
are even weaker than those of Red Vacuums and others, because in those cases the
defendant was shipping a product into Colorado after an online order. See id. Here,
however, plaintiff purchased, while in Colorado, a service that was to be offered in Peru.
Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 9. There is similarly no support for the proposition that a single
consumer’s purchase of a service offered somewhere else in the world creates specific
jurisdiction in the state in which the purchase occurred. See Rizas v. Vail Resorts, Inc.,
2009 WL 10664835, at *4 (D. Wyo. June 16, 2009) (“The mere allegation of negligence,
coupled with the injury of a forum resident, does not magically establish personal
jurisdiction.”) (citing Far West Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1079 (10th Cir.
1995); Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Grp., LLC, 946 F.3d 1223, 1230 (10th Cir.
2020) (“an out-of-state resident's contract with a resident of the forum state is
insufficient, standing alone, to create personal jurisdiction”); cf. Dinkel v. Crane Care,
Inc., 2010 WL 11453201, at *8 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2010) (services performed out-of-state
for a forum-state resident are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in forum state).
Plaintiff may be able to plead facts demonstrating that the Court has specific
personal jurisdiction over defendant, but she has not done so at this stage. Accordingly,
the Court will deny the request for default judgment without prejudice for failure to plead
sufficient facts showing personal jurisdiction. See United States v. Noell, No. 22-cv-
02538-PAB-SBP, 2023 WL 4204669, at *5 (D. Colo. June 27, 2023) (denying default
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 13 of 14

14
judgment motion without prejudice for failure to plead sufficient personal jurisdiction
allegations).
IV. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment and Request for
Evidentiary Hearing [Docket No. 31] is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED February 11, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
_____________________________
Case No. 1:23-cv-02232-PAB-MDB Document 35 filed 02/11/26 USDC Colorado
pg 14 of 14